Those of you with bump stocks, what will you do?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Surrender or Destroy?

  • Surrender

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Destroy

    Votes: 8 100.0%

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,300
Reaction score
4,223
Location
OKC area
E5623649-7216-432D-AADF-6261BBA3CB86.jpeg
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
5,124
Location
Kingfisher County
...

1) It's not an ex post facto law. That's a common misunderstanding. Ex post facto means declaring it illegal retroactively--passing a law today to say it was illegal to possess it yesterday. This isn't doing that; this is passing a law (or interpretation) today that makes it illegal to possess tomorrow (well, in 90 days). No retroactive effect, no ex post facto violation.

2) This isn't a "takings" issue under the Fifth Amendment. That refers to "taking for public use," as you note--this is simply declaring it contraband, and offering a means of compliance (get rid of it by giving it to us)...

[For the sake of Argument] :respect:

If it was legal to purchase/own at one point and later is 'declared' illegal to own, that means that the government is reaching back to 'confiscate' something that was legal at the time you purchased it. This is a consequence of the act of purchasing the article prior to the law/ruling/interpretation. You will be punished by a law(interpretation) that came into effect (or changed) after the purchase.

Since this property is going to be taken without a warrant, the government must have some public use in mind. Then, too, the Federal government has no power of eminent domain so I see nothing but violations galore of the rights of people.

[/For the sake of Argument] :contract:

Woody
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,300
Reaction score
4,223
Location
OKC area
[For the sake of Argument] :respect:

If it was legal to purchase/own at one point and later is 'declared' illegal to own, that means that the government is reaching back to 'confiscate' something that was legal at the time you purchased it. This is a consequence of the act of purchasing the article prior to the law/ruling/interpretation. You will be punished by a law(interpretation) that came into effect (or changed) after the purchase.

Since this property is going to be taken without a warrant, the government must have some public use in mind. Then, too, the Federal government has no power of eminent domain so I see nothing but violations galore of the rights of people.

[/For the sake of Argument] :contract:

Woody

But it’s all good, because Trump.
 

Cowcatcher

Unarmed boating accident survivor
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
6,171
Reaction score
13,853
Location
Inola
My feedtruck gun gets the stock bumped all the time. I can't imagine folks destroying em just to buy a new one to bump around. Is the economy sooo great that folks figure we should buy a new gun when the one we own has a bump on the stock?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom