TexasCHLforum.com

Zoo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:42 pmUnless the government is taking the bump stocks and issuing them to the police and military, how is it a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment?

This is where we get to use bad case law against them. The Kelo v. New London case said that public use including just getting an economic benefit for the community from the seizure. The purpose of this taking is to reduce crime, which is an economic benefit to the community.

So, if I have to turn in my bumpstock or go to jail, it is a seizure. The purpose of the seizure is to gain an economic benefit for the community by reducing crime. This means I have to be paid for it under the Fifth Amendment.

Or they can overturn the New London decision, which would also be a good thing.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:57 pm Where does Constitutional law on Ex Post Facto weigh against federal banning of bump stocks?

It would not matter. Ex post facto makes you guilty of things you already have done. This law would only make you guilty if you kept the illegal item past the deadline.

A better question would be if it would constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment requiring the government to pay you fair market value for it. I think it would.

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:48 pm

(9) a part or combination of parts that is designed and
functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but
does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

As written is would outlaw all hammerless and potentially all cartridge double rifles.

I disagree. The parts must make a semi-automatic fire faster. A double rifle is not a semi-automatic so it can be as fast as it can be made to fire. Gatling guns would also still be legal since they are also not semi-automatics.

I believe that it is only applying to things such as bump stocks, hellfire triggers, and binary triggers. It would make rubber bands or shoelaces illegal if they were mounted on the rifle as parts though.

The interesting part is that it doesn't define what is meant by rate of fire. I could argue that a bump stock does not change the cycle time and thus the rate of fire is still always one shot per twelfth of a second (IIRC the cycle time of an M16 correctly - it has been a long time).

But it would be best to stop the bill to avoid the problem to begin with.