Legal theory and ATF reclassification

raimius · December 21, 2017, 06:30 PM

Rumor has it, the BATFE is going to be starting a public comment period on reclassifying bump stocks and other devices as NFA "machine guns.". (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-machine-guns/)

Let's say they do reclassify them as NFA items. With the Hughes Amendment in place, what would/could happen to currently owned ones? Does the ATF have to grandfather them, reimburse owners for taking them, or neither? Previous laws tended to grandfather items, but since the MG registry is closed, would owners be forced to destroy them? Would that not invoke the takings clause and entitle them to compensation?

I have a passing understanding of a lot of these principles, but not how they would/could interact in practice.

**Frank Ettin** · December 21, 2017, 07:23 PM

Rumors are two for a penny and aren't worth nearly that much. Until there's something concrete we're not going to waste the time.

**Frank Ettin** · December 30, 2017, 12:28 AM

Note:

The ATF has issued a notice requesting information from manufacturers, dealers and consumers. Anyone interested in responding may do so in the manner described in the notice.

I'm not, however, opening this thread for discussion. Discussion at this stage about what form any regulations would take and how they would work would be too speculative to be useful. We can revisit the subject if regulations are proposed.

December 21, 2017, 06:30 PM	#1
raimius Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2008 Posts: 2,199	Legal theory and ATF reclassification Rumor has it, the BATFE is going to be starting a public comment period on reclassifying bump stocks and other devices as NFA "machine guns.". (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...-machine-guns/) Let's say they do reclassify them as NFA items. With the Hughes Amendment in place, what would/could happen to currently owned ones? Does the ATF have to grandfather them, reimburse owners for taking them, or neither? Previous laws tended to grandfather items, but since the MG registry is closed, would owners be forced to destroy them? Would that not invoke the takings clause and entitle them to compensation? I have a passing understanding of a lot of these principles, but not how they would/could interact in practice.

December 21, 2017, 07:23 PM	#2
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	Rumors are two for a penny and aren't worth nearly that much. Until there's something concrete we're not going to waste the time. __________________ "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

December 30, 2017, 12:28 AM	#3
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	Note: The ATF has issued a notice requesting information from manufacturers, dealers and consumers. Anyone interested in responding may do so in the manner described in the notice. I'm not, however, opening this thread for discussion. Discussion at this stage about what form any regulations would take and how they would work would be too speculative to be useful. We can revisit the subject if regulations are proposed. __________________ "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper