TexasCHLforum.com

https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admit ... ks-anyway/

I have read the linked article. Haven't read the documents it refers to.
If the writer is not misleading, this could be very interesting!

Hmm, could be a game changer.

It’s about time this is starting to get traction. You cannot have one guy in the ATF literally writing laws.

BLG wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:26 am https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admit ... ks-anyway/

I have read the linked article. Haven't read the documents it refers to.
If the writer is not misleading, this could be very interesting!

I looked through some of the references but I don’t think there is anything new here. Nothing that I’ve seen shows that ATF admits that it lacks the authority only that it screwed up prior in its interpretation of what is a maching gun. ATF has won every battle along the way in these recent cases. Thanks to the currnt administration, we are criminals; those that have bumpstocks. It’s clear that this was not some master scheme to establish precedent that ATF cannot make such rules through the courts. In fact, the precedent being established is entirely to the contrary. Again, I say thanks. There is though hope that new infringements won’t be enacted in response to pressure to do something. If those are, it’s bye bye 2020.

Everyone knows it was a obvious over reach by the government, the patent holder got it worse then anyone. They may be admitting to wrong doing like always but no one is ever held liable. Maybe I'm wrong?

Texas_Blaze wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:06 pm

BLG wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:26 am https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admit ... ks-anyway/

I have read the linked article. Haven't read the documents it refers to.
If the writer is not misleading, this could be very interesting!

I looked through some of the references but I don’t think there is anything new here. Nothing that I’ve seen shows that ATF admits that it lacks the authority only that it screwed up prior in its interpretation of what is a maching gun..

[/quote]

That is what I got out of it.
Mr. Kruckenberg's arguments sound like they could go somewhere, but if you start with the idea that government is responsible for deciding what the people should and shouldn't do, it's just sophistry.

narcissist wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:00 pm Everyone knows it was a obvious over reach by the government, the patent holder got it worse then anyone. They may be admitting to wrong doing like always but no one is ever held liable. Maybe I'm wrong?

Of course the government is going to punish it's self for doing what "the boss" told them to do.

Yes, the point is that only Congress makes laws that if broken, come with punishment*



*except if your Clinton

TreyHouston wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:38 pm Yes, the point is that only Congress makes laws that if broken, come with punishment*



*except if your Clinton

Then we really gotta let the EPA and some other folks know about that.

C-dub wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:27 pm

TreyHouston wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:38 pm Yes, the point is that only Congress makes laws that if broken, come with punishment*



*except if your Clinton

Then we really gotta let the EPA and some other folks know about that.

Good point

Does the ATF owe alot of people money?

nstead of defending the rule, ATF now pretends the ban is just a recommendation for the public.

It cannot be a mere recommendation when people can be arrested, convicted, and go to prison for having a bumpstock.

K.Mooneyham wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:31 pm

nstead of defending the rule, ATF now pretends the ban is just a recommendation for the public.

It cannot be a mere recommendation when people can be arrested, convicted, and go to prison for having a bumpstock.

Think it could be a trick in a way, if they tell people its a recommendation we were wrong, maybe someone might try to take one they kept to a gun range ect. Since there stating it in that form, sorry "Paranoia" I guess?

Interesting stuff. So I wonder where this is all headed legally. Will bump stocks be legalized again? I never really wanted one before. I think I am gonna load up on them this time.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:32 pm Interesting stuff. So I wonder where this is all headed legally. Will bump stocks be legalized again? I never really wanted one before. I think I am gonna load up on them this time.

I doubt it, mostly. I have a lot of faith in appellate courts though, so maybe. I tried to follow through and read most of the linked files. My problem is he only linked to his briefs, and did not post any of the ATF responses. In his briefs he claims they admitted they could not make the rule. If he is properly referencing the ATF briefs, I doubt the appellate court will rule in their favor and SCOTUS almost certainly wouldn't (if they take the case). The problem is that this is a very big IF. I have an innate distrust of people who post their interpretation of what someone else said and expect us to believe it and support them.

srothstein wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:11 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:32 pm Interesting stuff. So I wonder where this is all headed legally. Will bump stocks be legalized again? I never really wanted one before. I think I am gonna load up on them this time.

I doubt it, mostly. I have a lot of faith in appellate courts though, so maybe. I tried to follow through and read most of the linked files. My problem is he only linked to his briefs, and did not post any of the ATF responses. In his briefs he claims they admitted they could not make the rule. If he is properly referencing the ATF briefs, I doubt the appellate court will rule in their favor and SCOTUS almost certainly wouldn't (if they take the case). The problem is that this is a very big IF. I have an innate distrust of people who post their interpretation of what someone else said and expect us to believe it and support them.

Thanks for the input.We can always hope???