Massachusetts Demanding Licensed Gun Owners Surrender Bump-Fire Stocks

[Ringo]

Massachusetts Sends Letter to Licensed Gun Owners Demanding They Surrender Bump-Fire Stocks​

 

[S&W645]

Time to file a Federal lawsuit against MA for an unConstitutional act. What they have done violates Article 1, Section 10.

 

[TAC]

Article 1, Section 10 of what?

Not disagreeing with you, just want to know what you are referencing.

 

[Eidolon]

Article 1, Section 10 of what?

Not disagreeing with you, just want to know what you are referencing.

Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

[Ringo]

Former ATF Gun Tech Chief: Bump Stock Ban Will Lead to Other Bans​

 

[Jim Lagnese]

They can ask, but they can pound sand too.


Sent from my iPhone using Link Removed

 

[TAC]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The only part of this that look like it would apply, to me anyway, is the "ex post facto Law". However, this would only apply if the new law would declare everybody who owns a bumpstock to be a criminal based on having previously purchased or owned one. It would not apply in the case of a law that prohibits the continued, or future, ownership or purchase of one.

So, how are you interpreting this to make the actions of MA unconstitutional?

I agree that it is wrong and should not be happening, but I do not understand your logic behind it being unconstitutional based on your reference to Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

My feeling is that it should be deemed unconstitutional based on the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed", it is a small arms accessory and therefor ownership and usage of it should not be infringed upon, of course, we all can see how many infringements both the Federal as well as individual State Governments have enacted against our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[niceshootintex]

The only part of this that look like it would apply, to me anyway, is the "ex post facto Law". However, this would only apply if the new law would declare everybody who owns a bumpstock to be a criminal based on having previously purchased or owned one. It would not apply in the case of a law that prohibits the continued, or future, ownership or purchase of one.

So, how are you interpreting this to make the actions of MA unconstitutional?

I agree that it is wrong and should not be happening, but I do not understand your logic behind it being unconstitutional based on your reference to Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

My feeling is that it should be deemed unconstitutional based on the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed", it is a small arms accessory and therefor ownership and usage of it should not be infringed upon, of course, we all can see how many infringements both the Federal as well as individual State Governments have enacted against our right to keep and bear arms.

The items were intended for assistance with disabled persons using firearms. I would hope that population would get waiver consideration. MA got out in front of the ATF on this one so not certain how application of a federal regulation would be applied. Pretty knee jerk and not surprised.

Sent from my XT1650 using Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

The only part of this that look like it would apply, to me anyway, is the "ex post facto Law". However, this would only apply if the new law would declare everybody who owns a bumpstock to be a criminal based on having previously purchased or owned one. It would not apply in the case of a law that prohibits the continued, or future, ownership or purchase of one.

So, how are you interpreting this to make the actions of MA unconstitutional?

I agree that it is wrong and should not be happening, but I do not understand your logic behind it being unconstitutional based on your reference to Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

My feeling is that it should be deemed unconstitutional based on the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed", it is a small arms accessory and therefor ownership and usage of it should not be infringed upon, of course, we all can see how many infringements both the Federal as well as individual State Governments have enacted against our right to keep and bear arms.

Umm.... The linked article and the linked letter therein, say unequivocally that the Masshole state government is threatening current owners of bump stocks and trigger cranks with criminal prosecution if they don't dispose of them within the grace period.

Eidolon is 100% right this time. Pay particular attention to the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph of the letter. It doesn't get any more unequivocal than this:

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[S&W645]

The only part of this that look like it would apply, to me anyway, is the "ex post facto Law". However, this would only apply if the new law would declare everybody who owns a bumpstock to be a criminal based on having previously purchased or owned one. It would not apply in the case of a law that prohibits the continued, or future, ownership or purchase of one.

So, how are you interpreting this to make the actions of MA unconstitutional?

I agree that it is wrong and should not be happening, but I do not understand your logic behind it being unconstitutional based on your reference to Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

My feeling is that it should be deemed unconstitutional based on the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed", it is a small arms accessory and therefor ownership and usage of it should not be infringed upon, of course, we all can see how many infringements both the Federal as well as individual State Governments have enacted against our right to keep and bear arms.

Very simply, the State under US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 is prohibited from passing any ex post facto laws.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

If you bought one while it was legal to do so, they cannot make you a criminal for owning it. If you read the letter that BluesStringer posted, that is exactly what Mass says they are doing.

Specifically, Sections 18 to 21 of Chapter 110 make it illegal, as of February 1, 2018, to possess so-called " bump stocks " and " crank triggers " in Massachusetts.

Ex post facto law.

The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

" Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. "

 

[TAC]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with ya'all. They are saying that you will be committing a crime if you do not dispose of them. Having previously owned them would not be a crime, just continuing to own them after ownership is illegal.

This does not make it an "Ex post facto law".

As S&W645 correctly points out:

The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
" Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. "

MA is not saying that you are a criminal because you purchased one last year and owned it, nor are they saying that you will be punished for purchasing and owning it last year. They are saying that you would be a criminal if you continue to own it after it has become illegal.

I agree that it is wrong to do this, but that does not make it unconstitutional, at least not based on this argument.

 

[BluesStringer]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with ya'all. They are saying that you will be committing a crime if you do not dispose of them. Having previously owned them would not be a crime, just continuing to own them after ownership is illegal.

This does not make it an "Ex post facto law".

As S&W645 correctly points out:

The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
" Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. "

MA is not saying that you are a criminal because you purchased one last year and owned it, nor are they saying that you will be punished for purchasing and owning it last year. They are saying that you would be a criminal if you continue to own it after it has become illegal.

I agree that it is wrong to do this, but that does not make it unconstitutional, at least not based on this argument.

I own my Slide Fire Stock.

"Own" is the verb, or action.

An ex post facto law criminalizes that action, therefore, it is unconstitutional.

This isn't rocket surgery.

Blues

 

[TAC]

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

My understanding is based on reading the verbiage of Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

We both agree on the law being unconstitutional, we just disagree on they why of it.

No problem.

 

[Eidolon]

I am afraid that I have to disagree with ya'all. They are saying that you will be committing a crime if you do not dispose of them. Having previously owned them would not be a crime, just continuing to own them after ownership is illegal.

This does not make it an "Ex post facto law".

As S&W645 correctly points out:

The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
" Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. "

MA is not saying that you are a criminal because you purchased one last year and owned it, nor are they saying that you will be punished for purchasing and owning it last year. They are saying that you would be a criminal if you continue to own it after it has become illegal.

I agree that it is wrong to do this, but that does not make it unconstitutional, at least not based on this argument.

I dare you to find one person who is admitted to the bar that agrees with your opinion

 

[S&W645]

Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

My understanding is based on reading the verbiage of Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution.

We both agree on the law being unconstitutional, we just disagree on they why of it.

No problem.

Article 1 Section 9 does not apply to Mass. It is Article 1 Section 10 that does. It forbids the States from doing what the Federal Government is forbidden to do in Article 1 Section 9. Think back to the AWB and how it had to be worded. And the same with the banning of full auto weapons. Both had to allow for continued ownership of the items if purchased/registered in the case of full auto, before the deadline. That is why there were the requirement placed on manufacturers of adding statements on 30 round AR mags and on the guns themselves. So that the LEOs could see if it was a firearm or mag made after the deadline.

Restricted
Military/Government
Law Enforcement/Export
Use Only

markings ring a bell? Denial of the right to keep said items and making it a criminal is exactly what an ex post facto law does. It wasn't criminal to own them when bought, it only becomes so when this illegal 90 day rule period ends. And it also made it illegal to dispose of them in a way the owners saw fit. They had to be turned in to the police. That is confiscation.

Link Removed