Bump stock ban is finalized, banned from sale and 90 days to surrender

[Amishman]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/28/politics/final-bump-stock-ban/index.html

My worry is that this too good, especially from Trump.

By executive order and with no compensation offered, I am wondering if this is intentional to try and set up a quick Supreme Court ruling overturn a lot of existing laws now that they have their right wing majority firmly in place on the SCOTUS.

[Firestorm49]

1. A ban on bump stocks. Ooooh, wow.

[Chuuku Davis]

2. Good

But is it legal to confiscate without compensation?

[Amishman]

3. Probably not, 5th amendment related case law is pretty clear on needing compensation for govt taking

Which is why I am so very suspicious of this from Trump.

A good law / change done through unconstitutional means with nationwide scope lets the gun lobby cherry pick the friendliest conservative courts for the challenge. Trump appeals all the way to the SCOTUS, where his newly appointed right wing judges use it to write an overly broad ruling overturning all sorts of gun restrictions, probably using the 'common use' argument that Kavanaugh is famous for. I. Other words, the gun lobby has their puppets on all three sides of the case; litigant, defendant, and judge. They get to write whatever they want into constitutional case law without anyone else being able to intervene

[USALiberal]

4. I have trouble believing this will actually be implemented. Nt

[Calculating]

5. Pointless ban really

It does little to make us safer and is just a 'feel good' ban on what's basically a novelty item. I've used a bump stock before while target shooting and all it did was make it IMPOSSIBLE to accurately fire the gun. I felt like it would make me considerably less dangerous than if I was just using a normal gun.

[better]

11. I wouldn't agree that it is pointless, or that they are less dangerous.

You have a valid point about accuracy, of course, but nuclear weapons are most certainly not less dangerous than precision guided munitions by virtue of being more indiscriminate. Arguably, accuracy is not the primary objective in pretty much any case where a bump stock would be used.

[Kaleva]

13. I don't think you understand the point of full auto or near full auto fire.

I gotta laugh when I see comments about how it's pointless to ban bump stocks because they are inaccurate. I'll ask you what's the point of putting 30 rounds into one small target down range? If auto fire was so useless, the military would have abandoned it years ago as a waste of ammo. You probably know why the military will never ditch rifles capable of auto fire but you don't want to say it because it will refute your argument.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. i would be extremely surprised if this isn't tossed in court

And the surrender or destruction without compensation will likely get an immediate injunction ordered to halt it from going into affect. Legislation is the only way for this.

[WeekiWater]

7. I don't think confiscation without compensation will hold.

Making them illegal is sound. I believe they have been illegal in California for close to two decades.

[mitch96]

8. I think he is just playing to the base again...nt

[Kaleva]

14. His base is unhappy about it.

[better]

9. As a gun owner who strongly favors sensible and effective legislation

This proposed rule is the best news I have seen in decades, and I pray it withstands court scrutiny, even if it requires adding funding for compensation. I like this because it focuses very narrowly on a single characteristic that undeniably has a material impact on the level of threat to public safety. There will of course still be opposition, but that opposition will be much less broad than what we have seen in the past to things like the AWB that were much more broadly targeted.

Quite simply, there were some legitimate grounds upon which to oppose the AWB among the plainly obvious reasons to support it. But even as a lifelong gun rights advocate, I can see no grounds on which to oppose this ban, and still plenty on which to support it.

I would really like to see Democrats continue to pursue effective firearms regulation, but do a much better job of focusing such efforts on things that would make the most material impact, while retaining the support of the greatest number of reasonable/lawful gun owners, so that we can get more done. And I'm not alone among gun owners who would support much more stringent regulation of capacity and rate of fire, which are the things that matter most in the context of mass shootings.

Simply limiting our regulatory objectives to characteristics that really do make a material/scientifically demonstrable difference that even responsible gun owners will concede (like rate of fire / mode of operation, which are the grounds upon which this rule bans bump stocks) may be the difference between success and failure.

If what we need to do to make something like this rule stand is fund compensation, then I'm all for it. And while we're at it, let's take the exact same approach to high-capacity magazines, which are the other critically important factor alongside rate of fire. Regulate even just rate of fire and capacity, and we can make a huge difference.

[inwiththenew]

10. No compensation or grandfathering?

Seems like this was written either carelessly or intentionally so that the courts strike it down. I'll echo what other posters have said that this is probably not going to pass legal muster once it gets challenged and goes to the courts.

[backscatter712]

12. Like a fart in a hurricane.

Take what we can get...