Correct, and SCOTUS ruled that ATF pulled this out of their asses, to use your vernacular. Since you agree that’s not a thing we can do, then you agree that Trump’s executive order (not a law) unduly violated citizens’ 5th Amendment rights.
I think most of us would agree that the migrant families separated by Trump’s executive order had their 5th Amendment rights violated. If and when SCOTUS properly rules that it’s illegal, would you say it’s too bad and the window closed? It’s the same situation. It’s Trump violating people’s 5th Amendment rights. The only difference is how we feel about whose rights are being violated, and how.
SCOTUS didn’t rule that bump stocks were legal, though. They ruled that the government had no authority to ban them via executive order. By definition it means that the destruction mandate wasn’t due process of law. There was no law, just an executive order that’s been ruled invalid.
Again if we were talking about Trump directing ICE to put kids in cages, nobody would (I hope) argue that those families don’t deserve restitution for violation of their 5th Amendment rights (if SCOTUS ever catches up to the immorality and illegality of that order). Same amendment, same guy, same mechanism (unalwful executive order). It’s the same thing.
So let me get this right - every time someone’s Constitutional rights are micturated upon by government action in this fair country, we have to compensate the person?
Is this a thing that happens? I think the ICE directive is not really apt, for reasons I can’t really articulate. Civil asset forfeiture seems more apt to me, but I don’t think anyone gets reimbursed for the use of their car, time value of money, etc., when they finally get their assets back (if ever).
Has there ever been a case where people are reimbursed because of a rule that was later ruled unconstitutional? When gay marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional, were gay couples somehow compensated? Could women harmed by back-alley abortions in the 60s sue for compensation when Roe made abortion bans unconstitutional?
These aren’t situations where the behavior was considered legal at the state and federal level, then unlawfully criminalized via executive order, then recriminalized again. There were laws, and then there weren’t, which means that lawful due process was followed (albeit the laws were unjust). Even so, I don’t believe a reparations conversation is totally out of order on those issues, but that’s not what I’m arguing here.
OK, then, has there ever been reimbursements for something like this happening? This must happen to corporations all the time - I don’t think the government reimburses banks when a new FDIC rule ends up getting overturned.
Being upset at being penalized with a loss, be it valued at 50 bucks or 50 thousand, for in the end having done nothing wrong, is entirely understandable. As is the reaction “someone’s got to pay”. Except that’s not always so.
It seems the parties did not include in their suits a claim for compensation by the government, probably on advice of counsel. Perhaps because as mentioned by HMS_Irruncible and others then this could open the door to arguments challenging civil forfeiture, or that a raid that wrecks the wrong house should result in the police paying for the damage. Or everyone who has to incur expenditure to comply with a regulation or law heading to court to claim it was wrongfully passed and requesting monetary compensation.
In general the Law so far is that the cost of regulatory compliance, or of the consequences of a regulatory or legal mistake-in-good-faith by the government, is borne by those subject to it, and compensation or reparation must be specifically legislated.
If that may need to be reviewed, that’s independent on whether we like or don’t like the particular object of loss or the people experiencing it.
Do you feel the government has no responsibility to compensate someone when they’ve unlawfully deprived them of liberty or property? That’s what Donald Trump did here, and it’s not just bump stocks. I’m asking about the principle here, you can answer this without deflecting to precedent.
I can see an argument that this should be the case, but I think it almost never happens, unless the compensation is in the legislation. Absent that, I don’t see why former bump stock owners should be reimbursed when corporations aren’t reimbursed for overturned FDA rules, banks aren’t reimbursed for overturned Fed or FDIC rules, etc., etc.
If I were to choose a related hill to die on, it would be for civil asset foreiture instead, even though it’s only sort-of similar. Someone found not guilty should be reimbursed for not having a car, time value of money, etc., etc., in addition to getting their stuff back. Even better, their stuff shouldn’t be confiscated at all before a finding of guilt, and then only if it can be shown that the stuff was used for criminal things.
But this confiscation was the result of an act of Congress. Congress enacted a law that devices to modify guns such that a single action rapidly fires multiple bullets. A bump stock is such a device, therefore it falls under that law, as finally recognized by the executive branch. An activist court shouldn’t be able to override the will of the people, as expressed in an act of the Congress they elected.
Well, the “how” part sort of matters, doesn’t it? One group had their children kidnapped and taken away from them for months or years, and the other group threw away that cool bump stock they liked so much. I suppose if you ignore the kidnapped children part, it’s basically identical.
However the regulatory judgement of the executive as to what device met that definition had not been consistent — bumpstocks were ok, then not ok, per ATF itself. So that opens the door for a valid legal argument as to whether the current or previous application of the law was “the right one”.
This isn’t about the fact that I have no sympathy for bump stock owners because bump stocks are stupid and were used to kill a bunch of people. In fact, I do have some sympathy for them, because they got yanked around by a government making decisions based on politics instead of reason. That’s gotta be annoying.
Rather, this is about the fact that the remedy we’re discussing for bump stock owners isn’t something that happens. Even in cases where the rights that citizens were deprived of were WAY, WAY more significant and expensive.
If we want to have a conversation about what the government should do when it’s found to have incorrectly restricted the rights of gays, or migrants, or African Americans, or any other class that’s regularly been trampled by civil rights violations, then great! If we have this conversation as a direct result of people butthurt that the government took away their toy because a similar one was used to murder 60 people, then I’ma go vomit in the corner.
Right, “it’s the principle of the thing” but, yeah, we may want to keep the examples about tangible material loss around tangible material loss so we don’t get tied up arguing comparability.
And as I see it the argument is not (or should not be) whether this particular tangible material loss was a good thing to happen in itself.
Part of it becomes, I’d put it, if there’s a point where cost or economic loss resulting from compliance in good faith becomes something deserving of restitution if the loss incurred in compliance was based on a mistake of interpretation that is later undone, and what are metrics of scale and time and procedure that should apply?
As of now, as observed, the general rule in the Law is, if a presumed-valid-at-the-time application of the law causes such a loss, too bad so sad, write your Representative.
Is the only time in our history this has happened, where Congress took something away but was overruled by SCOTUS? Is there no precedent to look back on for guidance?
To be specific: Congress did not change a jot or tittle in the Law to take or not take. The executive regulator changed their mind as to what it applied to.
A distinction which, for some reason, seems to be a huge issue to people affected by this, but not one that should actually be relevant to this discussion. Had congress banned bump stocks instead of the ATF, and that law was overturned by SCOTUS, OP would still be hearing from his customers.
It doesn’t matter that ATF caused people to forfeit property by a rule that was later deemed illegal?
This is important. It’s one thing to say that laws change, and those are the breaks. That’s not what happened here. ATF illegally caused financial harm to people. Trump abused executive power on a whim. I don’t give a rat’s ass about people who care about bump stocks, but I very much care about Presidents, specifically Trump, countermanding the law via bullshit executive orders. You should too.
I don’t see how anyone could possibly confuse my saying that these are both 5th Amendment violations with a statement that both those harms are the same.
I will say that the people who are claiming they’re not motivated by disdain for gun culture (which I share) seem to be doing everything they possibly can do discredit themselves, both above and below this para.