Posted on 01/16/2018 12:59:36 PM PST by pabianice
At one point the decision referred to the Massachusetts court's decision as "frivolous".
Hopefully someone will take this to the Federal courts.
Of course they have a choice. They can quit.
No plans to contact violent criminals/illegal owners and tell them to turn in their bump stocks.
“There is no mention as to how an individual who chooses to comply with this law will be able to show proof that they did.”
If they comply, they cannot be proven guilty.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the police, having a receipt of purchase of bump-stock, can’t get a search warrant and dismantle your house looking for it - ensuring you regret ever playing footsies with the limits of what’s legal.
“There is no mention about what the police will do with these devices upon receiving them.”
Review the new law in question, seeing what exemptions exist. There MUST be exemptions for the police to be able to handle contraband.
I suspect some cops will enjoy their new (to them) bump stocks.
““any device to be attached to a weapon that repeatedly activates the trigger of the weapon”
Next they are going to becoming after our fingers
Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law.
Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law.
They always have a choice.
They have a list of current permit and license holders. Any state would that requires them.
how are they gonna compensate the owners for the property they are seizing? go by purchase price or depreciated value?
The legislation assumes/mandates compliance by the agencies. An individual chief or officer certainly has the choice to make.
My point was not down to that level of granularity.
Come and get it.
government lawyers operate by the principle of they can do whatever they want until a judge says otherwise.
They can’t confiscate what they don’t know you own...
Next step: MA bans Newtonian Laws of Physics.
I was just following orders
You always have a choice. The question is, are you willing to accept the consequences of that choice?
The police enforcing this “law” will, sooner or later, have to make the next choice....and the next choice.....and the next choice. Each becoming a little easier to rationalize.
When they begin taking people from their homes and hauling them in, a few will realize that they should have exited the slippery slope at the beginning. Most will not. They will stick with the “just following orders” defense.
So, the real question is not, will the police enforce said law(s), it is will be people force-ably resist?
Make no mistake, the slippery slope exists for both sides.
One would think that the exhortation of Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago is something everyone must consider.
This will probably go as poorly as the registration of “assault weapons” did in NY.
Yep - if they take any, they should be sued and charged with replacement costs. I have no use for such items but they shouldn’t be made illegal or confiscated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.