TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.

If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.

The way I read the proposed rule, the rule would simply redefine bump stocks as machine guns and they would be illegal. So no grandfather clause, just declaring them illegal.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Does anyone know the timeline on these types of rules? Apparently, we have until the end of June to submit comments, which will need to be read, considered, and possibly responded to. Then a final rule would need to be issued, and a timeline established for turning your newly defined "machine gun" in to the government, destroying it, or otherwise disposing of it.

Putting aside the possibility of a court ordered injunction until litigation has run it's course, what kind of time frame are we looking at before it becomes illegal to have a "bump stock" in your possession?

I realize this might not be an exact science. Just looking for a rough estimate.

The more comments, the longer this will take them. Strong, logical objections would push them to modify the rule's language or drop the proposed rule all together.

spectre wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

spectre wrote:When they change drug laws to ban additional substances like designer drugs do they include a grandfather clause?

I don't know that the relevant agency has ever specifically opined that a given drug is legal, and then later decided that it is illegal without there being a change in law, so I don't think we have any good precedents here. When things are outlawed, there is frequently a grandfather clause included in the new legislation.

If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

I agree agencies shouldn't be making laws, or rules/regulations that apply to anybody except employees, but The Black Robes have so far failed to enforce that separation of powers. It would be nice for all of the FDA and EPA rules to vanish in a puff of judicial smoke though.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.

I agree a lawsuit challenging this would be a good thing. I don't think the NRA will do it. I am not sure about other groups.

MechAg94 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that the ATF affirmatively stated that the Akins Accelerator was in compliance with all laws. And then the same agency later admitted they were mistaken and that the same thing they originally said was legal, was in fact never legal at all, even though there had been no change in the underlying law?

Because that is exactly what the ATF is now saying with this proposed rule. They are admitting that they screwed up on their original interpretation of the law, and are now saying that those who acted in good faith reliance on that mistaken opinion must forfeit the items that they bought. At a minimum, heads should roll at the ATF for costing their employer (the U.S. public) millions of dollars. I know that I would be out of a job really quickly if I cost the shareholders of my company anywhere near that amount of money.

I'm thinking there should be a lawsuit and a stay on enforcement until a judge can figure out whether this regulatory agency will change their legal interpretation yet again.

I agree a lawsuit challenging this would be a good thing. I don't think the NRA will do it. I am not sure about other groups.

I'm thinking class action lawsuit maybe? There would be a ton of potential damages just from the loss of value to current owners of this "machine gun".

spectre wrote:If you're looking for precedent, try the Akins Accelerator.

Let's not forget BATF rulings 94-1 and 94-2 which made some 12ga shotguns "destructive devices" retroactively.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/923-pa ... z5JjxpwQDJ

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf- ... -stock-ban.

COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON ATF’S PROPOSED RULE

https://www.regulations.gov/contentStre ... ntType=pdf

rotor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:01 pmI don't think they can call that eminent domain.

I would call it a regulatory taking, but this is not my area of the law. I cannot predict whether such an argument might succeed.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:36 am

deplorable wrote:

At the very least there should be a grandfather clause for bump stock owners. You have to acknowledge that. Because criminalizing the possession of lawfully purchased firearms and accessories is infringement. It is unconstitutional. Period.

You're correct it's an unconstitutional infringement, the same as every other NFA infringement. Including a grandfather clause in a bumpfire stock ban wouldn't change the constitutionality of the infringement in the slightest. Besides, the Hughes Amendment prohibits taxpayers from adding new machineguns to the registry, so a grandfather clause isn't legal.

But by not adding a grandfather clause, the ATF's proposed rule is creating a separate and distinct violation of the U.S. Constitution through an uncompensated taking. Given the choice of violating a law (the Hughes amendment) or violating the Constitution, the Constitution should win. This all ignores the fact that the ATF isn't even a legislative body in the first place and has no business violating any laws at all.

Not unless you're required to turn it in without compensation. If you have the option to modify it to comply with the law, there's no taking.

I agree the ATF has no business violating any laws at all, but they're part of the deep state and they routinely violate laws and get away with it, just like the FBI.

Trump just said a few minutes ago he and his admin are just a couple weeks away from being able to "get rid of " and ban bump stocks. If you want one, you better get it now. Now sure if they will be grandfathered or not.

The comments came a few minutes ago when he was discussing the new revised trade deal with Mexico and Canada on Fox News. Will post a link when I find it.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:57 pm Trump just said a few minutes ago he and his admin are just a couple weeks away from being able to "get rid of " and ban bump stocks. If you want one, you better get it now. Now sure if they will be grandfathered or not.

The comments came a few minutes ago when he was discussing the new revised trade deal with Mexico and Canada on Fox News. Will post a link when I find it.

The current rule does not have a grandfathering clause. So you will be risking your money if you buy one now. Of course, you may make a sizeable profit if you own one and they are grandfathered. This is a classic speculative investment situation.

Hopefully Trump doesn't decide to take too much more of our property in the future. I kind of like most of my stuff. It sure would be nice to get a conservative in the white house at some point.

Paladin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:02 am Final Rule

This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).

How long until some manufacturer reads this as a loophole and creates a harness type device that mounts to the shoulder, not the firearm?