View Full Version : BUMP STOCK OWNERS FORCED TO DESTROY DEVICES CAN'T GET COMPENSATION FROM FEDS...
BUMP STOCK OWNERS FORCED TO DESTROY DEVICES CAN'T GET COMPENSATION FROM FEDS, JUDGE SAYS
https://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-dismissed-1467834
federal claims court this week dismissed a lawsuit from bump stock owners that had alleged the U.S. government was improperly forcing them to destroy their devices without compensation.
Edit: Didn’t mean to post title in all caps...
Shall not comply
[emoji2373]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BoringGuy45
10-26-19, 10:38
Dangerous precedent. Declare any seizure of property to be a matter of public safety, and compensation for anything goes bye bye.
Also gives Beto a new angle to take for his "assault weapon" plan: No buy backs. Just turn them in and don't expect jack shit.
Judicial nominations are why it is so important to keep Republicans in the White House :rolleyes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_A._Smith
Oh, no, we would never confiscate guns. It's just a mandatory buyback.
I wonder if they will appeal this to the SCOTUS? I could see arguing that the legislation is the sole holder of the "police" power of government and not the ATF. Allowing non-elected officials to hold police power seems dangerous. The SCOTUS has looked down on the rulemaking procedure recently so maybe they would hear this. It would be interesting way to go after the ATF technical letters without someone having to go to jail first.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-26-19, 13:32
I wonder if they will appeal this to the SCOTUS? I could see arguing that the legislation is the sole holder of the "police" power of government and not the ATF. Allowing non-elected officials to hold police power seems dangerous. The SCOTUS has looked down on the rulemaking procedure recently so maybe they would hear this. It would be interesting way to go after the ATF technical letters without someone having to go to jail first.
Plus it is a “taking“ because you are not getting compensated for the loss of your property. I think this is important especially for all of the magazine bands that go on. If we make them actually pay for the magazines that they outlaw that may stymie their efforts since they don’t actually want to spend any money.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-26-19, 13:32
I wonder if they will appeal this to the SCOTUS? I could see arguing that the legislation is the sole holder of the "police" power of government and not the ATF. Allowing non-elected officials to hold police power seems dangerous. The SCOTUS has looked down on the rulemaking procedure recently so maybe they would hear this. It would be interesting way to go after the ATF technical letters without someone having to go to jail first.
Plus it is a “taking“ because you are not getting compensated for the loss of your property. I think this is important especially for all of the magazine bands that go on. If we make them actually pay for the magazines that they outlaw that may stymie their efforts since they don’t actually want to spend any money.
Plus it is a “taking“ because you are not getting compensated for the loss of your property. I think this is important especially for all of the magazine bands that go on. If we make them actually pay for the magazines that they outlaw that may stymie their efforts since they don’t actually want to spend any money.
If it was out of their pocket, then yes. Why I always bring up ditching the immunities and exemptions.
SomeOtherGuy
10-26-19, 21:32
Oh, no, we would never confiscate guns. It's just a mandatory buyback.
But without the "buy" part of "buyback." It's just a mandatory back. To a place that the item didn't come from in the first place.
Catch-22. SNAFU, BOHICA
Oh, no, we would never confiscate guns. It's just a mandatory buyback.
LOL, not even a buy back. Just turn em over and be lucky you aren't doing 10 years citizen.
Pistol braces could easily be next, all it requires is the sentence "ATF has determined..." Doesn't matter if that determination actually violates specific ATF definitions which supposedly exist so that people have a reliable means of being in compliance.
And so long as people permit the "sporter clause" within the 1968 GCA to continue to exist, ATF will continue to legislate by decree with the simple sentence "ATF has determined..." No due process, no need to get a bill through Congress, hell not even a President willing to sign an executive order, just ATF changing their mind and writing a determination letter which simply becomes federal law.
One of the greatest Constitutional over reaches that has ever existed and it's been in place for 50 years.
All the more reason mass non-compliance needs to be the rule of the day. I don’t care if it’s SBRs, F/As, diy suppressors, etc
I mean companies are 3D printing Inconal nowadays. ATF is going to be real salty when folks are printing cans inconel in their basement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if they will appeal this to the SCOTUS? I could see arguing that the legislation is the sole holder of the "police" power of government and not the ATF. Allowing non-elected officials to hold police power seems dangerous. The SCOTUS has looked down on the rulemaking procedure recently so maybe they would hear this. It would be interesting way to go after the ATF technical letters without someone having to go to jail first.
Don't take this personally, but I don't think you understand how the "sporter clause" applies. ATF determinations don't get appealed as a general rule. The Striker and Streetsweeper were declared destructive devices under the National Firearms Act with no sporting purpose by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in 1994, so that meant if the owners couldn't register them with ATF as a DD (which is a completely different category than machine guns, SBRs or suppressors) then they had to sell, surrender or destroy them.
There was no appeal of any kind, determination simply became law.
All the more reason mass non-compliance needs to be the rule of the day. I don’t care if it’s SBRs, F/As, diy suppressors, etc
I mean companies are 3D printing Inconal nowadays. ATF is going to be real salty when folks are printing cans inconel in their basement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Be interesting. I can remember the days when people were getting jammed up over rubber washers because ATF considered them "wipes" even if they weren't installed in a suppressor at all. Funny how technology and access changes the rules.
Be interesting. I can remember the days when people were getting jammed up over rubber washers because ATF considered them "wipes" even if they weren't installed in a suppressor at all. Funny how technology and access changes the rules.
This is true. Fortunately for us the genie being out of the bottle works both ways sometimes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem I have with all of this is that an agency of law enforcement, the ATF in this case, making rulings about what is illegal and legal. So someone in the agency writes a memo and bump stocks, pistol braces or suppressor wipes are legal or illegal. That definition of legal/illegal is on the legislative branch, not the enforcement branch of government.
As if hundreds of thousands of Bump Stock owners are destroying the things or surrendering them. Biggest failure to comply so far. I know of people who own the things, and still use them on a regular basis - they're just not taking pictures of the things and posting the evidence online, nor do they show up at gun ranges with them.
The problem I have with all of this is that an agency of law enforcement, the ATF in this case, making rulings about what is illegal and legal. So someone in the agency writes a memo and bump stocks, pistol braces or suppressor wipes are legal or illegal. That definition of legal/illegal is on the legislative branch, not the enforcement branch of government.
EXCEPT in this case, when the 1968 Gun Control Act gave them the "sporter clause" where they could simply determine what meets and does not meet the definition of having "suitable sporting purposes." And even if they declared it "ok" one day, they can always change their mind.
This is the greatest threat to the second amendment and the freedom of gun owners and most of them don't even know what it is, how it works or where it came from and IRONICALLY most of them blame Reagan for FOPA which managed to undo the worst parts of the 1968 GCA but failed to include the "sporter clause."
EXCEPT in this case, when the 1968 Gun Control Act gave them the "sporter clause" where they could simply determine what meets and does not meet the definition of having "suitable sporting purposes." And even if they declared it "ok" one day, they can always change their mind.
This is the greatest threat to the second amendment and the freedom of gun owners and most of them don't even know what it is, how it works or where it came from and IRONICALLY most of them blame Reagan for FOPA which managed to undo the worst parts of the 1968 GCA but failed to include the "sporter clause."
Perhaps Reagan didn't fully understand FOPA due to Alzheimer's? Repealing anti 2nd Amendment legislation was not consistent with his actions on Mulford, AP ammo ban, Brady Law, and semi-auto bans.
Don't take this personally, but I don't think you understand how the "sporter clause" applies. ATF determinations don't get appealed as a general rule. The Striker and Streetsweeper were declared destructive devices under the National Firearms Act with no sporting purpose by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in 1994, so that meant if the owners couldn't register them with ATF as a DD (which is a completely different category than machine guns, SBRs or suppressors) then they had to sell, surrender or destroy them.
There was no appeal of any kind, determination simply became law.
SteyerAUG,
I don't take it personally. The reason I thought this was so interesting is that I thought the claims court essentially said you have no claim because the government used their inherent police power to declare an item illegal and so no money's are due. The ATF did this through the power granted them in the GCA(?). However, as you pointed out the sporter clause gives the ATF the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ability to challenge it. But, I thought the police power of government holds with the legislature and not public employees. This would be what you could appeal to the SCOTUS. They could argue that they do have a claim as their property was "seized" by an action that rests soley with the legislature without the legislature acting. There are limits to what Congress can delegate I would assume. This would essentially be challenging Congress's ability to pass a law like the GCA that over delegates their responsibility.
the AR-15 Junkie
10-27-19, 09:41
Bumpstock challenge in SCOTUS updates here.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe
Bumpstock challenge in SCOTUS updates here.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe
Thanks for the link. I've read several of the briefs and was surprised how many people jumped in on this for reasons completely separated from guns in general. I would like to share a special gem of writing in one of the briefs:
"The only remaining distinction the ATF makes is that, without a bump stock, the operator must “control” other planes of movement while firing. But this control of various planes of movement with a firearm is observable even without the context of bump fire: it is a phenomenon colloquially referred to as “aiming.”
Perhaps Reagan didn't fully understand FOPA due to Alzheimer's? Repealing anti 2nd Amendment legislation was not consistent with his actions on Mulford, AP ammo ban, Brady Law, and semi-auto bans.
Reagan is the ONLY President I know that was shot and refused to participate in efforts to ban handguns when the National Council to Control Handguns contacted him directly for support.
Also Reagan wasn't in office when the Brady Law was passed. The AP ammo ban was part of the 68 GCA and the semi auto ban was in 1989, that was Bush 41. Reagan wasn't perfect or anything, but he is the most pro second amendment President since Kennedy.
SteyerAUG,
I don't take it personally. The reason I thought this was so interesting is that I thought the claims court essentially said you have no claim because the government used their inherent police power to declare an item illegal and so no money's are due. The ATF did this through the power granted them in the GCA(?). However, as you pointed out the sporter clause gives the ATF the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no ability to challenge it. But, I thought the police power of government holds with the legislature and not public employees. This would be what you could appeal to the SCOTUS. They could argue that they do have a claim as their property was "seized" by an action that rests soley with the legislature without the legislature acting. There are limits to what Congress can delegate I would assume. This would essentially be challenging Congress's ability to pass a law like the GCA that over delegates their responsibility.
Problem is these items are not seized, they are reclassified or newly regulated by ATF. That means in order to continue to be legal your options are sell (and it would probably be considered a post sample), surrender or destroy. Any challenge will simply be dismissed because it was within the power of ATF to regulate or reclassify an item.
Reagan is the ONLY President I know that was shot and refused to participate in efforts to ban handguns when the National Council to Control Handguns contacted him directly for support.
Also Reagan wasn't in office when the Brady Law was passed. The AP ammo ban was part of the 68 GCA and the semi auto ban was in 1989, that was Bush 41. Reagan wasn't perfect or anything, but he is the most pro second amendment President since Kennedy.
People who aren't sitting presidents can, and do, engage in actions supporting gun control like Reagan did.
Reagan voiced support for Brady law:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Voiced support for semi auto bans:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban
And while president signed an AP ammo ban:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/082886b
Most progun president since Kennedy (and decades prior to Kennedy) is bar laying on the ground low.
Out of curiosity, which president(s) who had been shot participated in efforts to ban handguns when approached by the National Council to Control Handguns?
People who aren't sitting presidents can, and do, engage in actions supporting gun control like Reagan did.
Reagan voiced support for Brady law:
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Voiced support for semi auto bans:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban
And while president signed an AP ammo ban:
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/research/speeches/082886b
Most progun president since Kennedy (and decades prior to Kennedy) is bar laying on the ground low.
Out of curiosity, which president(s) who had been shot participated in efforts to ban handguns when approached by the National Council to Control Handguns?
So supporting something while out of office is a LOT different from supporting something while IN office.
Reagan might have supported the 89 Import Ban but it was Bush 41 who made it law. And no President has been shot since Reagan, but a LOT of theme supported groups like HCI (which started as The National Council to Control Handguns).
So let's blame Reagan for the anti gun laws HE passed, but lets blame Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) for the anti gun laws THEY passed. And when ATF declares something like 5.7mm to be AP ammo, do we blame that on ATF or do we blame that on Bush (43)?
So supporting something while out of office is a LOT different from supporting something while IN office.
Reagan might have supported the 89 Import Ban but it was Bush 41 who made it law. And no President has been shot since Reagan, but a LOT of theme supported groups like HCI (which started as The National Council to Control Handguns).
So let's blame Reagan for the anti gun laws HE passed, but lets blame Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) for the anti gun laws THEY passed. And when ATF declares something like 5.7mm to be AP ammo, do we blame that on ATF or do we blame that on Bush (43)?
I don't see any reason why we can't blame them before, during, and after office when they choose to stay on the anti 2nd Amendment path.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-27-19, 18:52
Problem is these items are not seized, they are reclassified or newly regulated by ATF. That means in order to continue to be legal your options are sell (and it would probably be considered a post sample), surrender or destroy. Any challenge will simply be dismissed because it was within the power of ATF to regulate or reclassify an item.
Either way is still a “taking“. It doesn’t matter if you change a law to now make something illegal or there is administrative ruling. It probably is even more likely that you should be compensated for administrative ruling since you have no direct way of contesting that. You can always elect or unlocked or openly support people who pass the laws, but I name bureaucrats making determinations as to what you can and cannot on are immune from your direct influence.
You would have a stronger argument if there had never been a positive indication of owning a item, but then made illegal. But either way you are forcing someone to get rid of their property.
The bigger issue I have is how do you know that something like this is happened that could potential he make you a felon. This is true especially with magazine bans where I bet you a lot of people don’t know that they have 17 magazines that are above a 15 round limit. Because they don’t consider having owned an assault weapon, they bought a Glock handgun. So while we may tout the large number of people not actively compliant with these type of regulations, it may be far more common that people don’t realize that they are breaking the law.
Either way is still a “taking“. It doesn’t matter if you change a law to now make something illegal or there is administrative ruling. It probably is even more likely that you should be compensated for administrative ruling since you have no direct way of contesting that. You can always elect or unlocked or openly support people who pass the laws, but I name bureaucrats making determinations as to what you can and cannot on are immune from your direct influence.
You would have a stronger argument if there had never been a positive indication of owning a item, but then made illegal. But either way you are forcing someone to get rid of their property.
The bigger issue I have is how do you know that something like this is happened that could potential he make you a felon. This is true especially with magazine bans where I bet you a lot of people don’t know that they have 17 magazines that are above a 15 round limit. Because they don’t consider having owned an assault weapon, they bought a Glock handgun. So while we may tout the large number of people not actively compliant with these type of regulations, it may be far more common that people don’t realize that they are breaking the law.
I’m going to let you in on a secret. There is no taking if there is no giving.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nothing says FU to tyranny like being able to do your own tactical milling and make whatever you want. F*** bump stocks.
Whiskey_Bravo
10-27-19, 23:15
Nothing says FU to tyranny like being able to do your own tactical milling and make whatever you want. F*** bump stocks.
Tactical milling. Do you wear a plate carrier and mechanics gloves when you are tacticly milling?
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-27-19, 23:37
Tactical milling. Do you wear a plate carrier and mechanics gloves when you are tacticly milling?
And nothing else...
I guess it’s like LARPing but with power tools?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't see any reason why we can't blame them before, during, and after office when they choose to stay on the anti 2nd Amendment path.
I get it, you hate Reagan no matter what. Doesn't matter that you'd have to go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt to find a more "pro gun" President. You go ahead and hate Reagan, I just can't have this stupid conversation again.
Either way is still a “taking“. It doesn’t matter if you change a law to now make something illegal or there is administrative ruling. It probably is even more likely that you should be compensated for administrative ruling since you have no direct way of contesting that. You can always elect or unlocked or openly support people who pass the laws, but I name bureaucrats making determinations as to what you can and cannot on are immune from your direct influence.
You would have a stronger argument if there had never been a positive indication of owning a item, but then made illegal. But either way you are forcing someone to get rid of their property.
The bigger issue I have is how do you know that something like this is happened that could potential he make you a felon. This is true especially with magazine bans where I bet you a lot of people don’t know that they have 17 magazines that are above a 15 round limit. Because they don’t consider having owned an assault weapon, they bought a Glock handgun. So while we may tout the large number of people not actively compliant with these type of regulations, it may be far more common that people don’t realize that they are breaking the law.
Please don't think I'm in any way agreeing with their actions. I'm just pointing out the specific path they are taking towards violating everyone's rights and why there is little or no recourse as a result. And more importantly, I'm trying to stress why the sporter clause needs to go and it's the most important thing any gun owner should think about.
That is the tool they use to declare AP ammo illegal, that is the tool they use to ban machine guns (both in 1968 and 1986), that is the tool they used to ban military style semi auto imports and pretty much every single restriction anyone can think of. The second amendment makes no mention of sporting applications.
I get it, you hate Reagan no matter what. Doesn't matter that you'd have to go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt to find a more "pro gun" President. You go ahead and hate Reagan, I just can't have this stupid conversation again.
They (including Reagan) chose to violate their oath of office. I don't think lauding him or the others for violating that oath is in the best interest of individual rights.
I get it, you hate Reagan no matter what. Doesn't matter that you'd have to go all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt to find a more "pro gun" President. You go ahead and hate Reagan, I just can't have this stupid conversation again.
They (including Reagan) chose to violate their oath of office. I don't think lauding him or the others for violating that oath is in the best interest of individual rights.
They (including Reagan) chose to violate their oath of office. I don't think lauding him or the others for violating that oath is in the best interest of individual rights.
I don't think being factual about who did what is lauding anyone. And again, I think we are going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt before we arrive at a President who never did anything that violated his oath of office.
I'd like to hear who you think has been a good President (better than Reagan).
I don't think being factual about who did what is lauding anyone. And again, I think we are going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt before we arrive at a President who never did anything that violated his oath of office.
I'd like to hear who you think has been a good President (better than Reagan).
Earlier in this you claimed Kennedy, then switched to Teddy Roosevelt as being pro gun?
You also indicated an antigun law had to get put on the books while the president was in office to count against them so you might want to give this guy a look:
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-laws-obama-has-signed-2012-12
Personally, I think that is a bad pass/fail standard.
One of the few semi decent presidents was Jefferson and he should have rounded up the Alien and Sedition Act perpetrators.
How many Presidents have actually been "gun people" - you know collectors, active sport shooters, hunters, etc.? The last was probably Teddy Roosevelt, and he could be considered Progressive by current definition.
The fact is our Presidents come from a different area of society than the average citizen. Most seem to be from the upper crust of America and are somewhat detached from what the average person in flyover country deals with. It takes big money to be President and the average Joe just doesn't have the connections or personal wealth to get noticed. I am surprised that Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend got noticed - being Gay does seem to put one in the forefront of our current society - a kind of novelty.
Part of my support for Trump has been the outsider, somewhat crude, rough-around-the-edge type of guy. He's not perfect, but neither would a Farmer in Iowa, a factory worker in Pittsburgh or a rancher in Texas. They are the type of people we need to be President, not lawyer types with big money. The common Man would be more astute when it comes to protecting gun rights than fat cat wealthy types.
I voted for Reagan in 1980, and again 4 years later. The second time was absentee because I was in Honduras. Reagan was a big picture, a world stage type of President/Actor. The minutia of gun bills and the like never registered in his mind, which by 1984 was beginning to go. Nobody in the late '70's to mid '80's imagined the Second Amendment would ever be at risk. It was too much a part of our social makeup. You've got to look back at that time in history and understand what it was like to live during that time. Hindsight is not always 20/20.
Earlier in this you claimed Kennedy, then switched to Teddy Roosevelt as being pro gun?
You also indicated an antigun law had to get put on the books while the president was in office to count against them so you might want to give this guy a look:
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-laws-obama-has-signed-2012-12
Personally, I think that is a bad pass/fail standard.
One of the few semi decent presidents was Jefferson and he should have rounded up the Alien and Sedition Act perpetrators.
YOU changed the criteria from "pro gun", for which I went back to Kennedy being he was a NRA life member, to having violated their oath of office which in my mind probably takes us back to Theodore Roosevelt as I'm pretty sure even JFK violated his oath of office a few times. Please try and keep up when you change qualifiers and criteria for criticizing Presidents.
Given that you have to go all the way back to Jefferson to find a President you like, and I'm a fan of Jefferson too, I don't think we are having any kind of meaningful or realistic debate / discussion and seriously...I can't keep having these pointless debates anymore. Jefferson wasn't even President when our grandfathers were alive, we haven't lived to a Jefferson standard of respect for the Constitution more more than 100 years.
But if you or anyone else can somehow get a President with the same values and resolve as Jefferson elected, then I'll be more than happy to revisit this discussion and will gladly concede that Jefferson was like a far more "pro gun" candidate than any President of my lifetime and would be far less likely to violate his oath of office.
titsonritz
10-29-19, 18:49
So that's why nobody turned them in, they destroyed them instead. :jester:
YOU changed the criteria from "pro gun", for which I went back to Kennedy being he was a NRA life member, to having violated their oath of office which in my mind probably takes us back to Theodore Roosevelt as I'm pretty sure even JFK violated his oath of office a few times. Please try and keep up when you change qualifiers and criteria for criticizing Presidents.
Given that you have to go all the way back to Jefferson to find a President you like, and I'm a fan of Jefferson too, I don't think we are having any kind of meaningful or realistic debate / discussion and seriously...I can't keep having these pointless debates anymore. Jefferson wasn't even President when our grandfathers were alive, we haven't lived to a Jefferson standard of respect for the Constitution more more than 100 years.
But if you or anyone else can somehow get a President with the same values and resolve as Jefferson elected, then I'll be more than happy to revisit this discussion and will gladly concede that Jefferson was like a far more "pro gun" candidate than any President of my lifetime and would be far less likely to violate his oath of office.
Fair enough, I just can't bring myself to make excuses for someone that signed legislation banning the carry of firearms, banning AP ammo, banning full autos, and also voiced support for banning semi-autos too.
Fair enough, I just can't bring myself to make excuses for someone that signed legislation banning the carry of firearms, banning AP ammo, banning full autos, and also voiced support for banning semi-autos too.
Do you hate John Glenn?
Do you hate John Glenn?
The anti-2nd advocate?
The anti-2nd advocate?
Marine / test pilot/ astronaut/ senator / the guy who first banned full autos back in 68.
Marine / test pilot/ astronaut/ senator / the guy who first banned full autos back in 68.
68? As in 1968?
68? As in 1968?
Yes, you do know machine guns were first banned in 1968 correct?
Yes, you do know machine guns were first banned in 1968 correct?
Yes, imported ones. Did he lobby for GCA 68?
Yes, imported ones. Did he lobby for GCA 68?
And not just foreign machine guns, but every military surplus rifles was banned from importation. And Glenn didn't just lobby for it.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gun-control-act-1968
Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy.
This is why there is no such thing as a factory transferable MP5. This is also why pre68 import K-98s and PPKs command the prices they do. With the 1968 GCA they were all non importable. Things like SKS rifles and Mosin Nagant 91/30s were incredibly rare.
The only reason they are common now is because FOPA eliminated those provisions of the 1968 GCA. Also eliminated was the requirement to log all ammo sales and prohibitions on direct mail order purchase of ammo. So if you like having ammo shipped to your home, that is because of FOPA.
But probably the most important thing, and to most even more important than the ability to register domestic machine guns, is FOPA removed the vague language that defined a firearms dealer. Prior to FOPA it was a common practice for ATF to set up stings at gun shows where they would sell firearms at favorable prices and then have agents solicit those customers to sell the firearms they just purchased at a higher price. So if you bought something for $100 (which normally sold for $200) and then sold it to the guy at the gun show for $250 you were arrested for dealing firearms without a license.
The 1968 GCA basically viewed any favorable sale or trade as "dealing in firearms", which is why so many advanced collectors pulled "kitchen table" FFLs to protect themselves from being declared an unlicensed dealer. If not for FOPA, virtually every transaction in every EE on every forum would be potentially actionable by ATF.
There are two other things to consider. First Reagan asked the NRA what they wanted him to do and they told him to sign it because they were worried more about the above and being able to import cheap surplus firearms than they were about being able to continue to register new machine guns.
And second, and just as important, the version being pushed through Congress by Hughes and Rodino (the H.R. 3155 Racketeer Weapons and Violent Crime Control Act) would have completely closed the registry for everything and not provided a grandfather clause. So all machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs would become non transferable and that means almost nobody alive today would be able to own any of it.
If you were the registered owner in 1968, you were the last owner. Faced with the threat of that bill passing, the NRA urged Reagan to sign FOPA 86. Had Reagan not signed it, some version of H.R. 3155 would have simply been added to the 1989 import ban signed by Bush (41), the Clinton ban of 94 or any of the other subsequent bans.
Also FOPA is the first time any of the provisions of the 68 GCA had been undone since their passage. But here is the important part, the 1968 machine gun ban, the 1986 machine gun ban and the 1989 import ban don't have to be forever. If we could pass any legislation removing the sporter clause from the 1968 GCA, the legal foundation for all those bans and restrictions would be removed and eliminated.
So maybe instead of hating Reagan, or even Glenn, our efforts could be better spent letting people know about the Sporter Clause, which has been infringing our rights for 50+ years now, and making it the gun issue we are all focused on.
The GCA 68 NRA lobbied for?
And why not blame Glenn for lobbying for it? I wouldn't be surprised if Reagan was out lobbying for it also.
No reason we can't try to get GCA 68 off the books without blaming the anti 2nd Amendment turds, which includes Reagan and Glenn, that got us here.
The GCA 68 NRA lobbied for?
And why not blame Glenn for lobbying for it? I wouldn't be surprised if Reagan was out lobbying for it also.
No reason we can't try to get GCA 68 off the books without blaming the anti 2nd Amendment turds, which includes Reagan and Glenn, that got us here.
Well there is if you are being intellectually honest and looking at the entire picture. For example the NRA both supported and then opposed the 1968 GCA. Meaning at first they were ok with ending things like mail order firearms, but when things like the sporter clause were added, they opted out and campaigned against it. So bad guy or good guy?
I know in your world view, automatically a bad guy and the last decent president was Jefferson. And that is fine if you want to hold that all or nothing position, but if Reagan had your views, the Hughes / Rodino 86 Firearm Law probably would have went into effect and you and several other people would be here complaining about how Reagan "could have signed the other bill and saved us" but he's anti gun and didn't give a damn.
And that is why I really can't have this discussion again.
But here is the important part, the 1968 machine gun ban, the 1986 machine gun ban and the 1989 import ban don't have to be forever. If we could pass any legislation removing the sporter clause from the 1968 GCA, the legal foundation for all those bans and restrictions would be removed and eliminated.
That was an amazing post & thank you for taking the time to share!! Regarding this & let's just say eliminated...what happens to the value of the current FA market?? Would this allow all FA's in circulation to now be fully transferable?? I don't quite understand.
Well there is if you are being intellectually honest and looking at the entire picture. For example the NRA both supported and then opposed the 1968 GCA. Meaning at first they were ok with ending things like mail order firearms, but when things like the sporter clause were added, they opted out and campaigned against it. So bad guy or good guy?
I know in your world view, automatically a bad guy and the last decent president was Jefferson. And that is fine if you want to hold that all or nothing position, but if Reagan had your views, the Hughes / Rodino 86 Firearm Law probably would have went into effect and you and several other people would be here complaining about how Reagan "could have signed the other bill and saved us" but he's anti gun and didn't give a damn.
And that is why I really can't have this discussion again.
The entire picture on the NRA is several decades worth of anti-2nd Amendment support. They are still pissed Neal Knox ever existed plus out of the millions of people living in the USA they come up with Oliver Semi-auto Ban North for president.
Concerning Reagan/Glenn/et al, at least as bad as any non celebrity who tries to steal.
That was an amazing post & thank you for taking the time to share!! Regarding this & let's just say eliminated...what happens to the value of the current FA market?? Would this allow all FA's in circulation to now be fully transferable?? I don't quite understand.
Lots of registered full autos would lose a lot of value.
Pre 68 imports would probably stay about the same. A 1921 Colt Thompson is still going to be worth what a 1921 Colt Thompson is worth, a GI bring back MP40 is going to be worth about the same and a XM177 is going to be worth about the same because they are period collectibles and aren't really being made anymore.
Pre 86 dealer samples (FFL only) will generally see some drop in value because if a post 86 dealer sample is available they will also become transferable. Not too many people are going to pay $10,000 for a 1970s vintage MP5 when a recently produced example with factory upgrades suddenly becomes an option for around $1,200.
Pre 86 conversions will basically become worthless as factory originals would become transferable. All the vollmer converted HK94s to MP5s would be treated like clones and would probably sell less than $1,000 because factory new guns would be only a couple hundred dollars more.
Pre86 transferable factory machine guns would hold some value. A M16A1 would still be a M16A1 although probably a lot more would become available for private ownership. They would be treated a lot like collectible Colts that are no longer produced. Rare examples such as the M16A2 which were produced for less than a year before the registry was closed would probably not hold values at $20,000 or more simply because a lot of existing inventory would suddenly change from "post sample" to "transferable" status.
And yeah, there are some NFA collectors who would fight such a thing because their $500,000 collection would suddenly become a $50,000 collection, but speaking for myself I'd be glad to take the hit for the opportunity to buy NIB machine guns both foreign and domestic at non collector prices.
Bout what I figured...hate to be greedy & I'm very fortunate to have acquired my A1 at a price point that wouldn't hurt near as much as a true FA collector, but would imagine the drama would be intense. I could see some big players putting up a huge fight.
Likely nothing to worry about anytime soon as I just don't see law makers wanting to touch making more FA available at least in this current climate...still, very interesting stuff!! Thanks again. Could you tell me a little more about FOPA as I wasn't aware how critical their involvement was during that time.
Bout what I figured...hate to be greedy & I'm very fortunate to have acquired my A1 at a price point that wouldn't hurt near as much as a true FA collector, but would imagine the drama would be intense. I could see some big players putting up a huge fight.
Likely nothing to worry about anytime soon as I just don't see law makers wanting to touch making more FA available at least in this current climate...still, very interesting stuff!! Thanks again. Could you tell me a little more about FOPA as I wasn't aware how critical their involvement was during that time.
Well it wouldn't have to be presented as a bill that legalizes machine guns, it would be presented as a bill that overturns a constitutional violations of our civil rights by mandating a sporting application for every firearm that is imported or manufactured. In a very real sense it's no different than "special circumstance" laws for voters that were eliminated as unconstitutional.
If passed, machine guns would still be "regulated by the NFA" so lawmakers wouldn't be changing the status of machine guns for the average citizen, there would simply be a lot more of them if the registry was opened.
Regarding FOPA start here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?138963-H-R-3155-Racketeer-Weapons-and-Violent-Crime-Control-Act
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.