Posted on 04/09/2019 1:30:37 PM PDT by PROCON
Retailers who had to destroy tens of thousands of bump stocks to comply with an ATF rule change have gone to the court seeking compensation. (Photo: Slide Fire Solutions)
Two former retailers of now-banned bump stock devices are suing the federal government for damages they incurred after having to destroy their inventory.
The plaintiffs include two companies, Minnesota’s Modern Sportsman and Texas-based RW Arms, as well as two individuals, Mark Maxwell and Michael Stewart, who in all lost 74,995 bump stocks to the ban which took effect late last month. The case, filed in a Washington, D.C. federal court, argues that the ban’s requirement that bump-stocks be surrendered or destroyed within a 90-day period, with no opportunity for registration, violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property can’t be taken for public use without compensation.
The rule change, retroactively reclassifying legally-sold bump stocks as illegal machine guns, became effective on March 26. After that date, those possessing a bump stock could face federal weapons charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation. Between 2008 and 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had issued several classification decisions concluding that certain bump-stock-type devices were not machine guns.
“Without legislation, the government was able to overturn the previous ruling on bump stocks effectively turning law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight if they were not turned in or destroyed,” said Stewart of RW Arms. Stewarts’s Fort Worth-based company last month turned over more than 73,000 stocks to be shredded under the supervision of federal agents.
The lawsuit seeks an order recognizing that the stocks lost without just compensation violated the Constitution, leaving the government on the hook for the property along with the costs of suit, including attorneys’ fees and interest. An answer is due from the Department of Justice by April 11.
In early 2018, federal regulators believed there could be upwards of 520,000 stocks in circulation. Maxwell believes there could be over a million such stocks in the country.
Will this suit be successful?
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
I hope so, but I'm not optimistic that it will be. The takings clause does not apply to contraband, and bump stocks were turned into contraband by the ATF ruling.
“Will this suit be successful?”
Probably, in an ultimate sense...as long as it is not filed in the jurisdiction of the 9th CIRCUS!
No, it will NOT be successful because the government didn’t TAKE any property away. They just declared it illegal to possess. Technicalities will trip you up every time.
they should sue the democrats... as of now, the taxpayers will be liable for the pay back.
Why? This abomination was committed by a Republican president and his chosen lackeys.
Trump has to wear the jacket on this one.
Retroactive laws are unconstitutional.
King FDR did something similar — to Americans’ gold.
It seems to be ex post facto as well. But ATF was just following Sessions orders.
“The takings clause does not apply to contraband, and bump stocks were turned into contraband by the ATF ruling. “
The sons of bitches could do the same thing with semi autos...just like they did in NZ.
Or literally ANY other object or substance.
100 years ago, our homegrown nanny-state tyrants were at least more honest. They passed a constitutional amendment before banning alcoholic beverages.
What is more likely is that the sons of bitches will take away the binary triggers like Fostech Echo and Franklin Binary. (Those triggers fire on the pull, and fire again on the release.)
That is not what the takings clause means. They do not have to take anything. If something they do reduces the value of your property and no compensation is offered, that is a taking. Good background is Richard Epstein's book "Takings", 1985, Harvard University Press.
Well, that takes my breath away. That just takes the cake. I was taken with the wrong line of reasoning and feel that my staying at a Holiday Inn Express didn’t improve my understanding of the law any whatsoever. I feel taken advantage of by their (HIE) advertising.
I still haven’t handed in my bump stocks. All these wire hangers and my fingers haven’t been destroyed by the criminal feds yet.
I wonder how many bump stocks were recently lost in tragic boating accidents?
Uh oh...they’ll probably be goners too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.