Skip to comments.
Bump Stock Retailers Sue Feds For 75,000 Destroyed Stocks
guns.com ^
| April 9, 2019
| Chris Eger
Posted on 04/09/2019 1:30:37 PM PDT by PROCON
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
.. violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment which states that private property cant be taken for public use without compensation.Will this suit be successful?
1
posted on
04/09/2019 1:30:37 PM PDT
by
PROCON
To: PROCON; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; umgud; ...
RKBA Ping List
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.
2
posted on
04/09/2019 1:31:40 PM PDT
by
PROCON
('Progressive' is a Euphemism for Totalitarian)
To: PROCON
Will this suit be successful? 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.
3
posted on
04/09/2019 1:34:19 PM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
( is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: PROCON
“Will this suit be successful?”
Probably, in an ultimate sense...as long as it is not filed in the jurisdiction of the 9th CIRCUS!
4
posted on
04/09/2019 1:34:51 PM PDT
by
2harddrive
(Go to www.CodeIsFreeSpeech.com for 10 FREE 3D-printer gun blueprints!)
To: PROCON
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.
5
posted on
04/09/2019 1:38:27 PM PDT
by
BipolarBob
(Would you rather face a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses on the battlefield?)
To: PROCON
they should sue the democrats... as of now, the taxpayers will be liable for the pay back.
6
posted on
04/09/2019 1:40:29 PM PDT
by
teeman8r
(Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
To: teeman8r
they should sue the democrats Why? This abomination was committed by a Republican president and his chosen lackeys.
7
posted on
04/09/2019 1:42:26 PM PDT
by
NorthMountain
(... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
To: teeman8r
they should sue the democrats.
I think this one was Trump's call.
8
posted on
04/09/2019 1:43:10 PM PDT
by
JoSixChip
(Trump stands alone.)
To: JoSixChip
Trump has to wear the jacket on this one.
9
posted on
04/09/2019 1:47:00 PM PDT
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
To: Yo-Yo
Retroactive laws are unconstitutional.
10
posted on
04/09/2019 1:47:34 PM PDT
by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
To: BipolarBob
King FDR did something similar — to Americans’ gold.
To: PROCON
It seems to be ex post facto as well. But ATF was just following Sessions orders.
12
posted on
04/09/2019 1:50:26 PM PDT
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
To: Yo-Yo
“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.
13
posted on
04/09/2019 1:54:28 PM PDT
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
To: Bonemaker
The sons of bitches could do the same thing with semi autos 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.
14
posted on
04/09/2019 1:57:29 PM PDT
by
NorthMountain
(... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
To: Bonemaker
The sons of bitches already have in several states. At least semi autos that have removable magazines.
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.)
15
posted on
04/09/2019 2:06:03 PM PDT
by
Yo-Yo
( is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
To: BipolarBob
No, it will NOT be successful because the government didnt TAKE any property away.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.
To: 17th Miss Regt
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.
17
posted on
04/09/2019 2:57:11 PM PDT
by
BipolarBob
(Would you rather face a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses on the battlefield?)
To: PROCON
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.
To: PROCON
I wonder how many bump stocks were recently lost in tragic boating accidents?
19
posted on
04/09/2019 3:30:04 PM PDT
by
MeganC
(There is nothing feminine about feminism.)
To: Yo-Yo
Uh oh...they’ll probably be goners too.
20
posted on
04/09/2019 3:36:35 PM PDT
by
Bonemaker
(invictus maneo)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson