Ghost Guns in the news

[LoginName]

"He came under scrutiny as part of a federal investigation into the illegal shipment of firearms suppressors and silencers to his home, the prosecutor said at his arraignment."

Sounds like the ATF really is checking out and following up on people that were buying those 'fuel filters' and 'solvent traps' online.

There have been posters on Arfcom that have reported receiving visits and inquiries from agents about similar purchases.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

polymer80 glock lower, dremel with metal bits, drill and use bits provided. It can be done in under 15 minutes.

Yep, I will give you that one. I was considering an AR platform.

 

[Squire]

I had that toy when I was like 5 or 6. I'm sure my mom has the film strips somewhere in her attic.

Damn, look at the size of the magazine.... it has to be a high capacity gun.
View attachment 373179

 

[AHM]

It wasn't just that they lmade something illegal without any legislative process.

So?

Its that they made it illegal RETROACTIVELY with no grandfathering.

it ::= { possession of a type of object }

As if that never happened before.

Do you think that there are people out there carrying grandfathered zoobows?

 

[Coyote33]

I had that toy when I was like 5 or 6. I'm sure my mom has the film strips somewhere in her attic.

Challenge ON! (to get one of those pics on NES)

 

[dcmdon]

So?


it ::= { possession of a type of object }

As if that never happened before.

Do you think that there are people out there carrying grandfathered zoobows?

Having something retroactively banned with no opportunity for grandfathering or sale has NEVER been done in recent history. If you disagree please provide evidence.

Even a state sponsored bump stock (or anything else) ban is not as bad because you have the option of selling the item out of state and thus being compensated for your property.

But a retroactive FEDERAL ban leaves you no alternatives. It is truly a TAKING without compensation.

 

[AHM]

Having something retroactively banned with no opportunity for grandfathering or sale has NEVER been done in recent history. If you disagree please provide evidence.

1. Every single illicit drug ever.
2. ((I don't think I need to give more examples)).

 

[dcmdon]

1. Every single illicit drug ever.
2. ((I don't think I need to give more examples)).

Great point. I should have been more specific.

Let me add.

after getting explicit written confirmation that that item was legal from the relevant regulatory agency.

And lets get serious. Drugs are a consumable. Guns are a capital item. They last forever and are regulated.
Think cars, machinery. Imagine if the EPA suddenly said that all gas powered cars were illegal and needed to be destroyed with no compensation.

 

[AHM]

Great point. I should have been more specific.

Let me add.

after getting explicit written confirmation that that item was legal from the relevant regulatory agency.

(Thankew).

There's no constraint upon legislators or regulators equivalent to "stare decisis"
(which is merely one of a number of competing policies of legal interpretation -
not a binding law).

As long as a statute or regulation has been enacted according to
the actual rules of lawmaking covering a government body
(such as hearings, votes, the ability to pass an appropriate level of judicial scrutiny)
the people have no systemic protection against flip-flops.

Look at the Mass. legislature flip-flopping on
who gets to appoint a replacement for a US Senator,
based entirely on whether the governor is GOP or a Donk.

And lets get serious. Drugs are a consumable. Guns are a capital item. They last forever and are regulated.
Think cars, machinery. Imagine if the EPA suddenly said that all gas powered cars were illegal and needed to be destroyed with no compensation.

How about if a government outlawed possession of video gambling machines?
South Carolina did that, and their Supreme Court said it was a legit exercise of
Police Power, with no need to compensate owners for their (now-) contraband:
Westside Quik Shop Inc v. Stewart

(Closer to your heart?), a CT white paper on whether grandfathering and/or
compensation is necessary for an assault weapons ban:
Assault Weapons Ban and Takings Clause

Lots of the results to the few Google queries I tried
thought I was asking about Civil Forfeiture.
More than one goober has sold their house or business for cash on one coast,
starts driving across country, and some dumbass sheriff's deputy in flyover country
grabs all 5-6 figures to use for a down payment on a new Bearcat
for his department, "because Interstates are used by drug traffickers".

And finally, in the footnotes of uncompensated confiscations
in a frigging (Gabby) Giffords Law Center paper:
The Takings Clause: Not An Obstacle To Smart Gun Laws,
one of the examples is a law against pit bulls.
If you think your head explodes at the thought of gun confiscations,
imagine a hardcore NES dog-lover's pet being taken without compensation,
and put down by the gummint.

One can debate what laws are equitable, fair, or sensible;
or what laws are so egregious that their passage would constitute Go Time.
Just don't imagine that rises to the level of what laws are constitutional, sigh.

 

[dcmdon]

You are wrong. Any of the laws you illustrated, if they ran afoul of the taking clause of the Constitution would be illegal.

I'm not in any way delusional in saying that nobody would attempt such a thing. But also the reality si that a policy like this (retroactively banning without compensation) IS IN FACT constitutional on a state level, simply because you always have the option to sell out of state. So those citations above relating to state prohibitions aren't relevant.

The Constitutional problem arises when a national law is passes, eliminating any avenues for sale.

Can you name ONE example of a durable good being banned retroactively without compensation or opportunity for resale, when the manufacturer of that good got explicit written confirmation from the relevant regulatory agency that the item was legal?

 

[EMTDAD]

another bunch of lies, misinformation, and half-truths..

https://www.thesunchronicle.com/new...cle_e138dffd-1b37-5ce4-8aa7-55acd2f6c58d.html

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Great point. I should have been more specific.

Let me add.

after getting explicit written confirmation that that item was legal from the relevant regulatory agency.

Atkins Accellerator. AKINS v. U.S | No. 08-136C. | Fed. Cl. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

The logic seems to be that it is not a taking if the purpose is to deprive you of the property, but only a taking if the seized item is put to public use. Orwell would be impressed.

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

Does a gun that kills ghosts count?


View: https://youtu.be/o0UY4tHHb4o

 

[Dennis in MA]

another bunch of lies, misinformation, and half-truths..

https://www.thesunchronicle.com/new...cle_e138dffd-1b37-5ce4-8aa7-55acd2f6c58d.html

Wait. You mean tracing a gun isn't as easy as Logan picking up the phone and going to commercial break on Law & Order???? Next you'll tell me we really can't get a DNA match in a couple of hours. LOL

(Best moment on TV was on the Sopranos when AJ was caught cheating b/c him and the other kid whizzed in the boiler room. Principal told them they had their DNA. He tells Meadow. "Moron. That takes WEEKS to process your DNA!" "Oh." ROFL!!!! TV showing how TV is so wrong.)

 

[dcmdon]

Atkins Accellerator. AKINS v. U.S | No. 08-136C. | Fed. Cl. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

The logic seems to be that it is not a taking if the purpose is to deprive you of the property, but only a taking if the seized item is put to public use. Orwell would be impressed.

There are some very significant differences between the Slidefire situation and the Akins Accelerator.

1) Akins provided the ATF only with drawings. Slidefire provided the ATF with the actual product.
2) Owners of Akins Accelerators were required to remove the spring from the stock. They weren't required to destroy the stock. In fact, by applying forward pressure to the barrel, you could fire a springless Akins stock just like a slidefire.

I understand that these items may seem minor. But they are significant in that they give the ATF wiggle room in determining.

1) That the product as tested was different from the drawings.
2) That its not a taking since the owners of Akins Accelerators still retain the stock.

Don

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There are some very significant differences between the Slidefire situation and the Akins Accelerator.

1) Akins provided the ATF only with drawings. Slidefire provided the ATF with the actual product.
2) Owners of Akins Accelerators were required to remove the spring from the stock. They weren't required to destroy the stock. In fact, by applying forward pressure to the barrel, you could fire a springless Akins stock just like a slidefire.

I understand that these items may seem minor. But they are significant in that they give the ATF wiggle room in determining.

1) That the product as tested was different from the drawings.
2) That its not a taking since the owners of Akins Accelerators still retain the stock.

Don

What about the federal bump stock ban?

 

[Boris]

1) That the product as tested was different from the drawings.
2) That its not a taking since the owners of Akins Accelerators still retain the stock.

I know what you are saying, but we are in the word games territory that started with "tax is not an infringement"

One of the big issues that Confucius had with his contemporary Chinese fellows is that we say no what we mean. He wanted to make sure that language is used at means of communication, not ghey lawyer talk to exploit loopholes.

USPTO is fine with drawings and in fact most ATF "permission" letters come from drawings on new gun/accessory designs, not actual products. In fact people avoid it like plague because motherf***ers downright would rob you if they like to keep it. With Akins accelerator, once you remove the spring it's like buying a car and getting EPA notice that you have to remove an engine, you original product FUBAR and it's value has deminished to the point that you may not want it anymore. It's no longer whole.

 

[AHM]

The logic seems to be that it is not a taking if the purpose is to deprive you of the property, but only a taking if the seized item is put to public use. Orwell would be impressed.

So "the Founders" went out of their way to write "for public use" because they didn't mean "for public use".
Notwithstanding the rule against surplusage.

 

[Devils Paintbrush]

What about the federal bump stock ban?

Might be getting a second chance at a ruling on bump stocks.

Bump Stock


A federal appeals court last week vacated an earlier decision that upheld the federal government's ban on bump stocks and granted a petition for a rehearing.


The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, which takes issue with how government regulators moved to outlaw the devices in 2018.


While a 2-1 panel of the same court previously upheld the ban in May by relying in part on what is referred to as the Chevron deference, which allows courts to default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statues, Judge Joel Carson III, a President Trump appointee, dissented at the time, describing the ban as an overreach, saying, “turning a blind eye to the government’s request and applying Chevron anyway—the majority placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government."

Tenth circuit, but maybe it will trickle down to the masses (get it) one day.

I had to check the article date, came out two days ago.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So "the Founders" went out of their way to write "for public use" because they didn't mean "for public use".
Notwithstanding the rule against surplusage.

I think the founders thought obvious there was no other reason for a government taking except for fines after due process (as implied by the reference to "excessive fines").

 

[Dennis in MA]

Sometimes you do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

IF (let's hinge everything on that if, please - before blasting me out of the water) we decide that full-auto is bad to be untraced in this country, THEN maybe these things SHOULD be regulated.

BUT. . . . . that's a legislative action.

I've been in group leadership. One time I was with an organization. I was the lone vote (they wanted it unanimous) to RADICALLY bend the rules because this certain person was wronged by previous admins and he should be given X.

There was no question that the guy may have deserved X. But X was against the rules of the organization. 12 men in that room. 11 almost IMMEDIATELY voted "absolutely - give him X." They were willing to throw out everything in order to right a minor wrong.

Same thing with bump-stocks. The proper place to fix this is in the legislature. Not the judiciary. And the judiciary should ALWAYS know the difference.

I was proud the day I said, "I completely understand and he got railroaded. And if we want to venture into an open meeting of everyone in the organization to change the rules for him, I'm 100% behind it all. But to bend the rules here because we don't want to let that out?? That's wrong and I'll sleep well tonight blowing this whole thing up."

Same with the judiciary. They should sleep well at night knowing they did their job. If it's not your place to fix a problem, you don't fix the problem!

 

[AHM]

I think the founders thought obvious there was no other reason for a government taking except for fines after due process (as implied by the reference to "excessive fines").

If the Redcoats had burned the powder in Concord,
instead of confiscating it for the British Army's use,
would that have been a taking?

ETA: Or if they had spiked the cannons in place,
instead of hauling them back to Boston under sniper fire?