TX: How to dispose of your bump stops in Houston

[Grumpy1993]

The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Are you volunteering to be the test case?

[Soccerdad1995]

The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Are you volunteering to be the test case?

Nothing personal intended here, but I just want to point out my disdain for the "fear the test case" mantra that I see repeatedly espoused on this forum. In the context of your statement, it can almost be taken as a veiled threat. "Don't do this unless you want to be the test case".

The danger here is that if we have absolute fear of wrongful arrest (aka being the "test case"), then we grant the government absolute and complete authority to do anything that those in power choose to do. We must all make a personal decision about where we draw the line on this, and if we are to be citizens instead of mere subjects, then we must be willing to take the risk of being the "test case" on some issues. As another poster here likes to say, its all about the risks we personally choose to take.

The only way to have absolute certainty that you will never be a "test case", is to be dead. If you are living, then you are at some risk of being arrested for lawful behavior. So everyone living DOES actively choose to run the risk of "being the test case" when they walk out their door in the morning, drive to work, and do a whole host of other everyday, law abiding activities, whether they choose to acknowledge that decision or not. It really just comes down to a decision about which issues are worthy of running the "test case" risk, and which are not. That is a decision we must all make for ourselves.

[Soccerdad1995]

The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Actually the government can force you to do anything they want you to do. After all, the US government has more firepower than any of us.

The only real question is whether it is legal for the government to force you to do a particular thing, and whether you have any recourse to such government overreach. The ultimate recourse is to replace an oppressive government with a new one. As you well know, we have a mixed record in these parts on this matter. If we count all 3 major attempted revolutions in American history (Colonial revolt, Texas war for independence, Civil War), the people trying to overthrow what they viewed as an oppressive government are 2 for 3.

[Grumpy1993]

The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Are you volunteering to be the test case?

Nothing personal intended here, but I just want to point out my disdain for the "fear the test case" mantra that I see repeatedly espoused on this forum. In the context of your statement, it can almost be taken as a veiled threat.

Or it could simply be a question to see if they walk the walk, or merely talk the talk.

Nothing personal intended here, but I just want to point out there are a lot of people who are blowing smoke online.

[K.Mooneyham]

Okay, I want to ask a question: which law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas are going to set aside resources directed at enforcing the Federal bump stock ban? I'm not talking about if someone uses a bumpstock in an actual crime like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, murder. No, I'm talking about resources being devoted to going out and finding bumpstocks, and turning the now-illegal owner of said bumpstock over to the Feds for prosecution. Which agencies?

Now, I live in proverbial "flyover country" where most of us fit the political definition of "deplorables". I'm at least reasonably certain that our small town police force and even smaller sheriff's department has enough normal duties on their plates to not be worrying about arresting "Jimmy Joe" because he was out blasting cans at the cattle tank on his family's property with a bump-stock equipped rifle.

As I stated earlier in this topic, a law without enforcement isn't much of a law at all.

(And, again, I do NOT own one of those things, I just don't care if others do, and I think the law is dumb.)

[philip964]

Okay, I want to ask a question: which law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas are going to set aside resources directed at enforcing the Federal bump stock ban? I'm not talking about if someone uses a bumpstock in an actual crime like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, murder. No, I'm talking about resources being devoted to going out and finding bumpstocks, and turning the now-illegal owner of said bumpstock over to the Feds for prosecution. Which agencies?

Now, I live in proverbial "flyover country" where most of us fit the political definition of "deplorables". I'm at least reasonably certain that our small town police force and even smaller sheriff's department has enough normal duties on their plates to not be worrying about arresting "Jimmy Joe" because he was out blasting cans at the cattle tank on his family's property with a bump-stock equipped rifle.

As I stated earlier in this topic, a law without enforcement isn't much of a law at all.

(And, again, I do NOT own one of those things, I just don't care if others do, and I think the law is dumb.)

Probably all the President executive order did was:

Violated our rights.

It put out of business the companies that made them.

You won’t see them, if you ever did, at a local range.

If you House is searched by the police and you have one they will probably call the Feds.

If you have told someone you have one, and they ever hate you for any reason, they will call the feds.

A lot of law abiding citizens will now be criminals. They will also become liars and tell their shooting buddies, they cut it up as required by law.

There will be more ammunition for the rest of us.

Did it just make it illegal or can you still own one like owning a fully automatic rifle?

[apostate]

Did it just make it illegal or can you still own one like owning a fully automatic rifle?

We The People haven't been allowed to add machineguns to the registry for more than thirty years. In theory, a government agency could register a bumpstock machinegun (BSMG) and perhaps a BSMG could be registered as a post-86 dealer sample, but in either case that now-legal BSMG could not be transferred to one of the peasants.

[K.Mooneyham]

Okay, I want to ask a question: which law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas are going to set aside resources directed at enforcing the Federal bump stock ban? I'm not talking about if someone uses a bumpstock in an actual crime like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, murder. No, I'm talking about resources being devoted to going out and finding bumpstocks, and turning the now-illegal owner of said bumpstock over to the Feds for prosecution. Which agencies?

Now, I live in proverbial "flyover country" where most of us fit the political definition of "deplorables". I'm at least reasonably certain that our small town police force and even smaller sheriff's department has enough normal duties on their plates to not be worrying about arresting "Jimmy Joe" because he was out blasting cans at the cattle tank on his family's property with a bump-stock equipped rifle.

As I stated earlier in this topic, a law without enforcement isn't much of a law at all.

(And, again, I do NOT own one of those things, I just don't care if others do, and I think the law is dumb.)

Probably all the President executive order did was:

Violated our rights.

It put out of business the companies that made them.

You won’t see them, if you ever did, at a local range.

If you House is searched by the police and you have one they will probably call the Feds.

If you have told someone you have one, and they ever hate you for any reason, they will call the feds.

A lot of law abiding citizens will now be criminals. They will also become liars and tell their shooting buddies, they cut it up as required by law.

There will be more ammunition for the rest of us.

Did it just make it illegal or can you still own one like owning a fully automatic rifle?

Oh, I understand your anger over this, and as I stated, I believe the law is flat dumb. However, I don't want to get too mad at President Trump because of one thing: he's not a "gun guy". In fact, I have a feeling that his knowledge about firearms is rather low, and he took the advice of so-called professionals that what he was doing was going to make things safer without violating the 2A. Of course, it does NOTHING to make things safer, we both know that. Anyhow, IMHO, those who gave Trump the advice to ban those bump stocks, they are the ones who the anger should be directed toward, but it is highly unlikely that we will ever know exactly which so-called professionals "educated" President Trump on the subject. Also, I remain disgusted with, and contemptuous of, the mass news media propagandists who talked up the bump-stock into some sort of "superweapon". I'm sure they are all very pleased with themselves on this one.

[warpdrive]

Okay, I want to ask a question: which law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas are going to set aside resources directed at enforcing the Federal bump stock ban? I'm not talking about if someone uses a bumpstock in an actual crime like assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, murder. No, I'm talking about resources being devoted to going out and finding bumpstocks, and turning the now-illegal owner of said bumpstock over to the Feds for prosecution. Which agencies?

Now, I live in proverbial "flyover country" where most of us fit the political definition of "deplorables". I'm at least reasonably certain that our small town police force and even smaller sheriff's department has enough normal duties on their plates to not be worrying about arresting "Jimmy Joe" because he was out blasting cans at the cattle tank on his family's property with a bump-stock equipped rifle.

You probably don't have much to worry about in red counties. The same situation as oil filter silencers, except a bump stock makes more noise to attract unwanted attention.

It's a different story in blue counties. For example, nobody should be surprised if Acevedo dedicates resources to this.

[KD5NRH]

Problem solved: https://babylonbee.com/news/tragic-ever ... g-accident

[philip964]

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/28/dona ... urns-peace

Donald Trump turns honest people into criminals.

[jason812]

Is there any data to see how many have been turned in? I'm guessing single digit percentages.

[Odinvalknir]

I don't think the president is pro or anti 2nd Amendment. When I do believe is that he just might be a fudd.

[srothstein]

Is there any data to see how many have been turned in? I'm guessing single digit percentages.

Two were turned in Austin, just to enable the owner to file a federal lawsuit over the ban. He waited until he had been harmed by the law.

[srothstein]

The goverment cannot force you to destroy your own property without due compensation.

Yes, they can. And I am answering in a legal fashion, not as some others have posted about realistic based on might.

This is one of the greatest misunderstandings of the law. Most people think the Fifth Amendment stops the government from seizing your property without compensation. But you will note that it actually says the property cannot be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without compensation. A confiscation of this type is not property taken for public use. The rest of the amendment says it cannot deprive you of property without due process of law, but the argument would be that the rule making was due process of law.

I believe that the ban would be legal under the Fifth Amendment.

There is only one way I can see that this ban is not legal. I see this as an illegal reinterpretation of the way Congress wrote the law and it does not meet the definitions in the law. But this has happened with other laws and been upheld. One example is the law that says health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people because of their activities (such as motorcycle or horse riding). The regulations written by HHS specifically allow insurance companies to not provide coverage for certain dangerous activities, exactly what the federal law was trying to stop. I have little faith that federal courts will not uphold this ban.