Okay, now we’re getting somewhere, we have an admission that bump stock owners deserve something. It’s less than everyone else, and after everyone else, but Czarcasm agrees that they’re owed something.
Anyone else?
No, it’s not a mistake of law, and the plaintiff isn’t responsible. They were coerced into destroying their property because the Executive branch unconstitutionally threatened to make them felons if they didn’t comply. The plaintiff wasn’t in any position to say “hmmm, I don’t think I’ll follow this regulation”, not without serious risk to their liberty.
I am not saying they are owed anything.
I am saying that there is a damn long line of groups that are just seeking reparations, and the bump-musketeers are last in line as far as I’m concerned.
For heaven’s sake, I don’t think anyone on this thread would argue otherwise. We’ve all stipulated the same. How hard is it to understand that the only debatable question here is whether bump stock owners deserve anything, not whether they deserve more or less than anybody else?
Right – and under our tradition of law, such a circumstance does not require you to be compensated.
…
(Can’t help notice the OP’s plea to not make it about gun control would have been presume doomed from the start, but it has been observed by some, while other participants have taken every opportunity to remind the reader of their scorn for what the loss was and/or for who feels wronged.)
As an aside, I just looked up what a bump stock was and my God, they actually managed to find a way to make assault rifles even less accurate in full auto? That takes some creativity.
Whataboutism.
No. Prioritizing.
and be sure to remind them its Trump’s fault. 
Eh if you want to keep your customers, stay away from political partisanship.
If you kept attention at the time you’d remember me bitching to high heaven about this, about Trump, and about the way the ban got implemented. I was at the NRA convention where He was blathering how while he was President the 2nd Amendment was sage and then in a very short period of time he went after pieces of plastic that citizens bought legally.
Not necessary in a gun store.
Interesting way to describe bump stocks.
And since they really are just pieces of plastic and not actual firearms I’m not really seeing a Second Amendment protection for them.
But that’s just me…
What’s just you is you didn’t read what the ire was about the ban (the way it was implemented) and the reasoning behind overturning the ban. None of it based on the 2nd Amendment.
As my OP insisted, this is not a gun control debate.
Bullshit, the ire is over finally getting a work around the specific wording of the federal ban on machine guns, after many failed attempts, and having the government finally come to it’s senses and say NO.
Alito got it right,
“There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.”
But hey, what’s this statutory intent thingy? No one ever said that that should be paid attention to, ever.
According to this ‘it takes two separate actions to make it work so…’ that would mean that some early machine gun designs should not fall under 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) since you have to press and hold a thingy before the trigger will do it’s trigger thing . . . just like a bump stock.
Then open your own thread about that. As the OP said, this debate could be about having to surrender or destroy lawfully purchased widgets.
And yet the OP had exactly one paragraph about that.
If you didn’t want this to be a discussion about guns you should have not started it five paragraphs about ‘guns’.
Maybe if you don’t want this to about a specific you should find some actual examples that are not about guns.
Now that SCOTUS has overturned the law there will be a push in Congress to ban them. Might I suggest you start a debate about that and we can argue there.
Yes. If Congress had done it, SCOTUS would have not said a thing. It was the way it was done, changing the meaning of a law by a simple regulation.
To make a decision due to misunderstanding about law is a mistake of law by definition. That is precisely what happens when the client destroys his own property based on a good faith assumption that a regulation is valid and applies to him. The plaintiff was, in fact, in a position to ask a court to rule the regulation unconstitutional, and to ask for an injunction against its enforcement, which is how the case got to the Supreme Court in the first place.
~Max
Probably should have made a thread about widgets that aren’t for guns, then, because that’s going to be the issue everyone focuses in on.
Maybe make the thread about vapes, or those tires with the colored stripe of rubber in them so you could do rainbow burnouts.