User Panel
Senior Circuit Judge Loren A. Smith from Chicago and educated in Denver.
|
|
Quoted:
The gold they took was US Currency, not jewelry, art, or private property. You don't own US Currency. Also, the Government didn't go and confiscate Bump Stocke. People willingly turned them in to not face prosecution. Plently of folks still hage their bump stocks. Possession after the date is the crime, not the item itself. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
The gold they took was US Currency, not jewelry, art, or private property. You don't own US Currency. Also, the Government didn't go and confiscate Bump Stocke. People willingly turned them in to not face prosecution. Plently of folks still hage their bump stocks. Possession after the date is the crime, not the item itself. Here is the text of that order for you to read. April 05, 1933By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled "An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes," in which amendatory Act Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do declare that said national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States by individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations and hereby prescribe the following regulations for carrying out the purposes of this order: Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term "hoarding" means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade. The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or corporation. Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following: (a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold. (b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. (c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign Government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements. (d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for other proper transactions (not involving hoarding) including gold coin and bullion imported for reexport or held pending action on applications for export licenses. Section 3. Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall, within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Section 2; or unless such gold coin or gold bullion is held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon. Section 4. Upon receipt of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to it in accordance with Sections 2 or 3, the Federal Reserve Bank or member bank will pay therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States. Section 5. Member banks shall deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned or received by them (other than as exempted under the provisions of Section 2) to the Federal Reserve Banks of their respective districts and receive credit or payment therefor. Section 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, out of the sum made available to the President by Section 501 of the Act of March 9, 1933, will in all proper cases pay the reasonable costs of transportation of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates delivered to a member bank or Federal Reserve Bank in accordance with Section 2, 3, or 5 hereof, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be necessary, upon production of satisfactory evidence of such costs. Voucher forms for this purpose may be procured from Federal Reserve Banks. Section 7. In cases where the delivery of gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates by the owners thereof within the time set forth above will involve extraordinary hardship or difficulty, the Secretary of the Treasury may, in his discretion, extend the time within which such delivery must be made. Applications for such extensions must be made in writing under oath, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and filed with a Federal Reserve Bank. Each application must state the date to which the extension is desired, the amount and location of the gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates in respect of which such application is made and the facts showing extension to be necessary to avoid extraordinary hardship or difficulty. Section 8. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and empowered to issue such further regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the purposes of this order and to issue licenses thereunder, through such officers or agencies as he may designate, including licenses permitting the Federal Reserve Banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System, in return for an equivalent amount of other coin, currency or credit, to deliver, earmark or hold in trust gold coin and bullion to or for persons showing the need for the same for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of Section 2 of these regulations. Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both. This order and these regulations may be modified or revoked at any time. |
|
Quoted:
Understanding the "how and why" of how the government operates is key in fighting this. The Gold Confiscation was the US Government declaring that gold currency was null and void and allowing Americans to exchange a $20 gold coin for a $20 bill. Currency swaps are common across the globe. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Understanding the "how and why" of how the government operates is key in fighting this. The Gold Confiscation was the US Government declaring that gold currency was null and void and allowing Americans to exchange a $20 gold coin for a $20 bill. Currency swaps are common across the globe. Secondly: Not long after the gold confiscation began, the US Congress passed and FDR singed the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 which allowed the US Government to alter the gold value of the dollar which they promptly did by devaluing those reserve notes that were handed out in exchange for gold thus stripping people of purchasing power. Thirdly: The US Government did not declare gold currency null and void under FDR's administration. Quoted: The Federal Reserve Bank is the banking institution that keeps the market afloat and dealsnwith banks and monetary policy. The Fed is a private entity founded by Congress. While private for business organizations (banks) buy stock, the Fed is not actually privately owned like a traditional bank is. It is convoluted and complicated as hell. But basically, private self managing organization founded by the government to regulate manage the banking industry and currency use. Quoted: Again, the Government has not confiscated Bumpstocks. People willingly turned them over. The bumpstock itself is not the criminal act, possession by unauthorized people are. If I was a SOT, I could possess bumpstocks after the enactment date, same way they can possess and make MGs. Look at Post '86 Dealer Samples for to Class III FFL as another example. I can't buy it, but Vito of Only the Best in South Florida can. If property is deemed contraband by law then said item is banned and subject to confiscation. The mere fact the confiscation has not yet taken place or that some people willingly surrendered or destroyed their illegal property to prevent prosecution is irrelevant. The bumpstock, itself, as it was sold to the general consumer and possessed by the vast majority of owners prior to being outlawed is, in and of itself, illegal as it was deemed to be and now is a post-86 machine gun. |
|
Quoted:
Same ruling will be applied if Betacuck Fake Messican Bobby O'Rourke or any Demmunist gets into Congress and passes the mandatory gun buy back laws, the law will still stand, weapons will be required to be turned in for destruction, but no compensation will be given. View Quote |
|
What ever happened with the RW arms lawsuit against the fed ?
|
|
|
Quoted:
NJ has taken legally purchased firearms and firearms parts and accessories with zero compensation for decades. All unconstitutional as fuck. Why is it so surprising when it's done everywhere else? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The Government didn't "take property". They made the act of possession after a certain date illegal. Nothing more. People voluntarily turned over their property to the government. View Quote |
|
Roscoe Filburn was just growing wheat for his family and his livestock. Doesn't mean the government couldn't take it away. Thanks FDR.
|
|
|
Quoted: Generally, States are given the "Police Power" under the 10th Amendment which courts have held allows them to take property to public safety. However, that power has traditionally not been granted to the federal government like this. View Quote How much compensation has been paid to those who have had unregistered machineguns forfeited/seized over the last 85 years? Not being compensated for a forfeited bumpstock in 2019 is no different than not being compensated for an unregistered, forfeited Thompson in 1935 The very basis for the National Firearms Act was that of "public safety"...... |
|
Quoted: So you're saying that bootleggers who had their contraband seized by the Treasury Department, or people who had their contraband seized by the DEA were generally compensated for it in the past? How much compensation has been paid to those who have had unregistered machineguns forfeited/seized over the last 85 years? Not being compensated for a forfeited bumpstock in 2019 is no different than not being compensated for an unregistered, forfeited Thompson in 1935 The very basis for the National Firearms Act was that of "public safety"...... View Quote |
|
The implications for this are enormous. Think of the person that has $200,000 in pre-86 transferable MGs. One day in the future, some nut job with a legally owned pre-86 goes and kills a bunch of people. All of sudden, Congress decides they should have banned all of them. A new law is passed, just like this one, that says you have 90 days to destroy or turn in your transferable MGs. Want your $200,000 back? Sorry, the government doesn't have to pay you because they decided your property is dangerous to the public.
Show me I'm wrong. |
|
Quoted:
The implications for this are enormous. Think of the person that has $200,000 in pre-86 transferable MGs. One day in the future, some nut job with a legally owned pre-86 goes and kills a bunch of people. All of sudden, Congress decides they should have banned all of them. A new law is passed, just like this one, that says you have 90 days to destroy or turn in your transferable MGs. Want your $200,000 back? Sorry, the government doesn't have to pay you because they decided your property is dangerous to the public. Show me I'm wrong. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
With this precedent, the President could probably direct the ATF to do it themselves and get away with I, should all of this be allowed to stand. What Trump's Admin did was fucked up on many levels. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The implications for this are enormous. Think of the person that has $200,000 in pre-86 transferable MGs. One day in the future, some nut job with a legally owned pre-86 goes and kills a bunch of people. All of sudden, Congress decides they should have banned all of them. A new law is passed, just like this one, that says you have 90 days to destroy or turn in your transferable MGs. Want your $200,000 back? Sorry, the government doesn't have to pay you because they decided your property is dangerous to the public. Show me I'm wrong. The way it was done is more concerning than what was done. But "our guy" did it,so we let it slide............ |
|
The judges won't even let you get compensation when the authorities blow up your house and you think they would compensate you for your bumpstock?
Court Says “Too Bad” To Innocent Man Whose House Was Utterly Destroyed By Colorado Police While In Standoff With A Criminal On The Run Recently a man’s house was broken into by a criminal on the run while he was away. The police tracked him down and the incident turned into a standoff where the police fired constant munitions into the home, utterly devastating it, and then while the criminal later surrendered, the police said that they will not pay for the damage incurred, and the courts sided with the police. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
What ever happened with the RW arms lawsuit against the fed ? View Quote "Mark Maxwell, with RW Arms, one of the plaintiffs, told Guns.com the fight will go on:" ""We feel strongly that the Court got this ruling wrong, and we are preparing an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As we plan to file later this week we recognize there are several errors made by the Judge regarding the facts and law, and we are incredibly concerned with the dangerous precedent it sets. We will continue the fight for the Second Amendment and property rights of all Americans, against the most well-funded defendant in America, who has a history of changing rules and regulations mid-stride."" |
|
|
Quoted:
The implications for this are enormous. Think of the person that has $200,000 in pre-86 transferable MGs. One day in the future, some nut job with a legally owned pre-86 goes and kills a bunch of people. All of sudden, Congress decides they should have banned all of them. A new law is passed, just like this one, that says you have 90 days to destroy or turn in your transferable MGs. Want your $200,000 back? Sorry, the government doesn't have to pay you because they decided your property is dangerous to the public. Show me I'm wrong. View Quote Real pre '86 MGs can't be redefined as post '86 manufacture, so they can't go 'poof' that way. They'd have to modify Hughes to be explicitly ex post facto & try their luck in the courts, or more likely do like Canada & make transfer or inheritance illegal, and wait for the "freedom glitch" to fix itself. Which still makes the guns worthless, but still usable in some fashion. |
|
Quoted:
Got an email 10-29 from RW Arms that linked to this.......https://www.guns.com/news/2019/10/28/court-no-compensation-for-destroyed-bump-stocks?goal=0_3c60d90255-862ec9e58d-79035723&mc_cid=862ec9e58d&mc_eid=bcc037f49e "Mark Maxwell, with RW Arms, one of the plaintiffs, told Guns.com the fight will go on:" ""We feel strongly that the Court got this ruling wrong, and we are preparing an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As we plan to file later this week we recognize there are several errors made by the Judge regarding the facts and law, and we are incredibly concerned with the dangerous precedent it sets. We will continue the fight for the Second Amendment and property rights of all Americans, against the most well-funded defendant in America, who has a history of changing rules and regulations mid-stride."" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What ever happened with the RW arms lawsuit against the fed ? "Mark Maxwell, with RW Arms, one of the plaintiffs, told Guns.com the fight will go on:" ""We feel strongly that the Court got this ruling wrong, and we are preparing an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As we plan to file later this week we recognize there are several errors made by the Judge regarding the facts and law, and we are incredibly concerned with the dangerous precedent it sets. We will continue the fight for the Second Amendment and property rights of all Americans, against the most well-funded defendant in America, who has a history of changing rules and regulations mid-stride."" |
|
Quoted:
This. The way it was done is more concerning than what was done. But "our guy" did it,so we let it slide............ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The implications for this are enormous. Think of the person that has $200,000 in pre-86 transferable MGs. One day in the future, some nut job with a legally owned pre-86 goes and kills a bunch of people. All of sudden, Congress decides they should have banned all of them. A new law is passed, just like this one, that says you have 90 days to destroy or turn in your transferable MGs. Want your $200,000 back? Sorry, the government doesn't have to pay you because they decided your property is dangerous to the public. Show me I'm wrong. The way it was done is more concerning than what was done. But "our guy" did it,so we let it slide............ |
|
I'm still pissed off how Obama and the Dems banned bump stocks...
|
|
|
I was being facetious. GD always blames Obama and Democrats for gun laws, yet more restrictions have evolved under Trump than Obama....
|
|
Government exist to protect property. Apparently government forgot this.
|
|
Quoted:
Yep,scary part wasn't the Bumpstocks,but they way they were banned. Shirley the dems won't abuse that when they get back in power someday............... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Scariest ruling I've seen in a long time. Shocked no one cares about this. This has implications far beyond guns. The Judge doesnt even cite SCOTUS ruling in Horne v. Dept of Agriculture from 2015 that says private property cant be physically taken for any reason. If the government can take any property they deem dangerous, we have no property rights. This is the first time the federal government has really made people destroy or turn in property. I hope this is appealed or we are all screwed. https://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-dismissed-1467834 Shirley the dems won't abuse that when they get back in power someday............... |
|
|
Quoted: Hughes specifically sets a cutoff date. Bump stocks were made after it, so when they were magically redefined as MGs they went 'poof.' Because the law was unaltered (without even the decency of a congressional vote) it is claimed to not be an ex post facto taking --the reason for the pre '86 exemptions in the first place. Yes, the bump stocks existing before the rule change means it was clearly ex post facto, but we still pretend that regulation isn't "law" even though it operates with greater authority & less restraint than the constitution allows laws. Real pre '86 MGs can't be redefined as post '86 manufacture, so they can't go 'poof' that way. They'd have to modify Hughes to be explicitly ex post facto & try their luck in the courts, or more likely do like Canada & make transfer or inheritance illegal, and wait for the "freedom glitch" to fix itself. Which still makes the guns worthless, but still usable in some fashion. View Quote either there is no ex post facto allowed or there is? |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Like I said, Obama didn’t ban bump stocks, the current democrat in charge did View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I was being facetious. GD always blames Obama and Democrats for gun laws, yet more restrictions have evolved under Trump than Obama.... Mission. Accomplished. |
|
Quoted:
Hey,we wanted a President that gets things done,not some namby pamby like obama that tried to ban them twice and failed. Mission. Accomplished. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was being facetious. GD always blames Obama and Democrats for gun laws, yet more restrictions have evolved under Trump than Obama.... Mission. Accomplished. ETA: Trust in the plan... as long as it’s trolling the libs |
|
Quoted:
Right I remember being told something about the long game. Ban all the shit then let the patriot act judges rule the banning unconstitutional View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was being facetious. GD always blames Obama and Democrats for gun laws, yet more restrictions have evolved under Trump than Obama.... Mission. Accomplished. Trump is a master of Interdimensional chess-he banned Bumpstocks knowing full well that SCOTUS will overturn it,along with all the other gun laws. Don't be so hopped up on instant gratification-the wait will be well worth it.Probably happen next year....... |
|
|
That’s about right for that piece of shit.
|
|
LOL.....Even Judge Napolitano could have seen this one coming.....Maybe.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Hey, at least we get the dankest of memes from this administration! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: Hughes specifically sets a cutoff date. Bump stocks were made after it, so when they were magically redefined as MGs they went 'poof.' Because the law was unaltered (without even the decency of a congressional vote) it is claimed to not be an ex post facto taking --the reason for the pre '86 exemptions in the first place. Yes, the bump stocks existing before the rule change means it was clearly ex post facto, but we still pretend that regulation isn't "law" even though it operates with greater authority & less restraint than the constitution allows laws. Real pre '86 MGs can't be redefined as post '86 manufacture, so they can't go 'poof' that way. They'd have to modify Hughes to be explicitly ex post facto & try their luck in the courts, or more likely do like Canada & make transfer or inheritance illegal, and wait for the "freedom glitch" to fix itself. Which still makes the guns worthless, but still usable in some fashion. View Quote "As the purpose of promulgating the Final Rule was to promote public safety and to prevent public harm, the Court must conclude that ATF acted within the narrow confines of the police power when it required the surrender or destruction of all bump stocks. Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss." I think you and I are in agreement though, because what I was saying was that if Congress wanted to modify Hughes and give you 90 days to give up your property, the legal outcome would be no different. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not sure what you mean by ex post facto taking. No, the judge did not "pretend that regulation isn't 'law'". He treated it as a legislative rule. Even still, the court concluded, "As the purpose of promulgating the Final Rule was to promote public safety and to prevent public harm, the Court must conclude that ATF acted within the narrow confines of the police power when it required the surrender or destruction of all bump stocks. Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss." I think you and I are in agreement though, because what I was saying was that if Congress wanted to modify Hughes and give you 90 days to give up your property, the legal outcome would be no different. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Hughes specifically sets a cutoff date. Bump stocks were made after it, so when they were magically redefined as MGs they went 'poof.' Because the law was unaltered (without even the decency of a congressional vote) it is claimed to not be an ex post facto taking --the reason for the pre '86 exemptions in the first place. Yes, the bump stocks existing before the rule change means it was clearly ex post facto, but we still pretend that regulation isn't "law" even though it operates with greater authority & less restraint than the constitution allows laws. Real pre '86 MGs can't be redefined as post '86 manufacture, so they can't go 'poof' that way. They'd have to modify Hughes to be explicitly ex post facto & try their luck in the courts, or more likely do like Canada & make transfer or inheritance illegal, and wait for the "freedom glitch" to fix itself. Which still makes the guns worthless, but still usable in some fashion. "As the purpose of promulgating the Final Rule was to promote public safety and to prevent public harm, the Court must conclude that ATF acted within the narrow confines of the police power when it required the surrender or destruction of all bump stocks. Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss." I think you and I are in agreement though, because what I was saying was that if Congress wanted to modify Hughes and give you 90 days to give up your property, the legal outcome would be no different. |
|
Amendment V
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Someone is going to be overturned. If they are tryng to hide behind it NOT being for "public use" but for 'public safety' it is gong to blow up in their faces. The phrase "Hoist with his own petard" (Shakespeare) comes to mind. |
|
Lol, you guys actually believe in Justice and that a judge will provide it? We have a legal system that, at times, provides justice if it's politically in the best interest of those in power. That's all we've ever had. Laws simply enforce political will.
|
|
Quoted: Not trying to attack here, but I have questions . Your post comes off as a huge amount of guardhouse lawyering . I may not own the paper bill itself , but i do own the value it represents. When they confiscated gold , the people were reimbursed the value of that gold . I thought The Fed wasn't a government agency ? If it is not then the actual paper money isn't government property either correct? I'd love to know how many people kept their gold and said fuck the government. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Lol, you guys actually believe in Justice and that a judge will provide it? We have a legal system that, at times, provides justice if it's politically in the best interest of those in power. That's all we've ever had. Laws simply enforce political will. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
While the atf never examined them the fbi did and there is a report of the bumpstocks equipped rifles firing as bumpstock equipped rifles. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Yes, they were used in the Vegas shooting. YouTube channel John E. Hoover is just one of them. Endless police body-cam footage if you can weed through his opinions/theories. I tend to believe there is some type of Saudi connection. |
|
Quoted:
Your logic is solid, EXCEPT as i understand it there are numerous ATF letters saying " a bump stock isn't a MG, or part of one... and thus 100 % legal". then those ex post facto became MG's?? either there is no ex post facto allowed or there is? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Hughes specifically sets a cutoff date. Bump stocks were made after it, so when they were magically redefined as MGs they went 'poof.' Because the law was unaltered (without even the decency of a congressional vote) it is claimed to not be an ex post facto taking --the reason for the pre '86 exemptions in the first place. Yes, the bump stocks existing before the rule change means it was clearly ex post facto, but we still pretend that regulation isn't "law" even though it operates with greater authority & less restraint than the constitution allows laws. Real pre '86 MGs can't be redefined as post '86 manufacture, so they can't go 'poof' that way. They'd have to modify Hughes to be explicitly ex post facto & try their luck in the courts, or more likely do like Canada & make transfer or inheritance illegal, and wait for the "freedom glitch" to fix itself. Which still makes the guns worthless, but still usable in some fashion. either there is no ex post facto allowed or there is? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.