Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Can we at least agree "Bump Fire Stock" ownership [View all]NickB79
(19,233 posts)38. It appears that definition is outdated after Horne V. USDA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horne_v._Department_of_Agriculture
"Writing for a majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Fifth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to pay just compensation when they take personal property from citizens. Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers corn in the 1215 Magna Carta,[15] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties,[16] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay.[17] Chief Justice Roberts concluded that personal property has not been given any less protection than real property for at least 800 years and that the physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking. Applying this rule, Chief Justice Roberts held that the raisin reserve requirement constituted a physical taking because the government would physically seize the growers raisins. Chief Justice Roberts also held the payout from raisin reserve sales do not change the takings analysis because courts only consider potential remaining uses of property when evaluating regulatory takings, not physical takings."
"Writing for a majority of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Fifth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to pay just compensation when they take personal property from citizens. Chief Justice Roberts began his analysis by tracing the history of personal property from the protection of farmers corn in the 1215 Magna Carta,[15] to the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties,[16] to a 1778 editorial by John Jay.[17] Chief Justice Roberts concluded that personal property has not been given any less protection than real property for at least 800 years and that the physical appropriation of property gives rise to a per se taking. Applying this rule, Chief Justice Roberts held that the raisin reserve requirement constituted a physical taking because the government would physically seize the growers raisins. Chief Justice Roberts also held the payout from raisin reserve sales do not change the takings analysis because courts only consider potential remaining uses of property when evaluating regulatory takings, not physical takings."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Someone will be along to tell you that youve used the wrong word to describe them.
yardwork
Oct 2017
#4
And there will probably be a lot more sold in the coming days/weeks as legislation
jmg257
Oct 2017
#12
Wouldn't you then have to compensate the owners to avoid illegal "taking" of private property?
NickB79
Oct 2017
#32
An attorney should know better. (I'm betting you do, just choosing to ignore the facts.)
X_Digger
Oct 2017
#74
Is this something they can ban outright and confiscate, or do they have to reimburse current owners?
jmg257
Oct 2017
#11
ROFL - yeah, just like all the booze taken when prohibition went into effect, NOT
jberryhill
Oct 2017
#27
Possession of alcohol wasn't illegal - only manufacture, distribution, and sales.
NutmegYankee
Oct 2017
#52
Screw the bump stock owners. They bought the damn things to turn their guns into automatics and
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#57
Why? You guys just need to take the loss. You bought an obsolete product that you can no longer
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#64
Possession should have serious consequences then bump mod is a form of wmd modification
uponit7771
Oct 2017
#24
Oh, I'm sure the gunners will find all kinds of ways around the law. That's why we need to do
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#66
Glad you acknowledge that gun-strokers aren't as law-abiding as they keep telling us.
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#59
Did people who owned brewing companies and distilleries receive compensation?
jberryhill
Oct 2017
#31
I'm fine with it, but you won't accomplish anything in regards to safety or crime
Lee-Lee
Oct 2017
#47
Well, it might have slowed Paddock down a bit. Do you still have your receipt for your bump stock,
Hoyt
Oct 2017
#60
If California can make these thing illegal, why can't the Federal Government? Nt
HopeAgain
Oct 2017
#80