MNGunTalk.com

xd ED wrote:

LarryFlew wrote:Would you believe someone just offered to trade his bump stock for one of the Rugers i have for sale.

That could work...with the right amount of cash...say, the price of the Ruger plus a 25% handling fee.

Wish I had thought of that rather than replying with an are you kidding me type reply.

Bump stocks fit the statutory definition of a trigger activator in every aspect, except possibly one - no part of it actually touches the trigger. However, there's a finger stop right next to the trigger guard, and the instructions are to place your finger through the trigger guard as normal, and rest it on the finger stop. In doing this, you have completed the "assembly" of a trigger activating device. If you were to screw a little piece of metal or wood or plastic onto the finger stop that extended into the trigger guard, the stock would now directly activate the trigger without the operator needing to use his finger at all. To rely on the absence of this last piece of linkage, especially when the instructions tell the user to use his finger in this capacity, it's just extremely risky. There's been no test case yet, so no one can say for certain, but even if its ruled at some point not to be a trigger activator, its so close according to the statutory definition that a person is really rolling the dice by owning one.

Is this an anti-gun opinion? Absolutely not! It's simply my honest analysis of the law as it currently exists, without injecting a pro-gun bias into it. Personally I think the trigger activator ban is stupid. I think bump stocks are stupid, I think Gat cranks are stupid, I think binary triggers are stupid, and I think the machine gun ban is stupid. If a law-abiding individual wants to purchase a real machine gun, he should be able to do so without breaking the bank. I think both the state and federal machine gun bans are stupid, and that all of the "make-believe" gadgets that allow a person to simulate full auto fire are stupid. Ideally we should just drop all of this nonsense and allow people to own the real-deal, period. I am not anti-gun, I'm just being a realist here as to existing law as written.

So why did I bring it up in the first place? Well I believe that the lawsuits against ATF are likely to succeed. The federal ban on bump stocks will most likely be struck down. But it's a different situation for those at the state level.

Up until now Lori Swanson has been the Attorney General of MN. She's a Democrat, but she's a pro-gun Democrat. I don't know if the question of bump stocks ever crossed her desk, but it's my understanding that if the question did come up, she would have taken a pro-gun stance on the issue, and not gone after law-abiding gun owners simply because they own bump stocks. This has changed recently though, we now have Keith Ellison as Attorney General. What do you think Keith Ellison's office will do if the federal ban on bump stocks is struck down, given that there's already a trigger activator ban on the books in MN? I can say with absolute certainty that within weeks if not days of the federal ban being struck down, Ellison will be on TV announcing that his office has determined that they're in fact illegal here in MN, and begin prosecuting anyone found with one. And in my humble opinion, given the law as written, I think he's likely to win the test case, settling the question on whether bump stocks are illegal in MN. At which point anyone owning one will be subject to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Ellison in the Attorney Generals office changes a lot of things for us. We used to have a friend in there, where now we have a very determined enemy. Where previously many things in the "grey area" of the law were not prosecuted with regard to guns, at this point I would expect that anything and everything that can be prosecuted with regard to guns will be. Including self defense claims. In recent years we've seen several cases of lawful self defense by a permit holder that was so obviously justified self defense, that they were never charged or prosecuted. Unfortunately, under Ellison those days might be over. I hope I'm wrong, but I would expect that every instance of lawful self defense will be prosecuted, just because they can. I'd also expect that every act of lawlessness by Antifa or leftist organizations or activists will be dropped for procedural reasons or some other nonsense. Ellison chose to move down from US Congressman to MN Attorney General for some reason, and I believe that it's probably in preparation for a future Governors office run, and to weaponize prosecutions against those he considers his political enemies. And he considers gun owners his political enemies.

Getting back to bump stocks, even if/when the federal ban is struck down, those in MN that own them are still likely going to be in significant legal risk.

Just my $0.02

The first segment of Tom Gresham’s GunTalk is about the bumpstock ban. He talked with an attorney from the firearms policy coalition. The attorney pointed out that they doubt the ban will be added to the register during a government shutdown.

He also said they expect it to be dismissed based on administrative reasons such as they didn’t allow a hearing when requested and the comment website said comments were over for the first few days of commenting.

He said if it goes past that the main thing is that congress is the only ones that can change the definition of what constitutes a machine gun.

He said don’t do anything with yours until this all gets sorted out as they have requested an injunction.

jshuberg wrote:Bump stocks fit the statutory definition of a trigger activator in every aspect, except possibly one - no part of it actually touches the trigger. However, there's a finger stop right next to the trigger guard, and the instructions are to place your finger through the trigger guard as normal, and rest it on the finger stop. In doing this, you have completed the "assembly" of a trigger activating device. If you were to screw a little piece of metal or wood or plastic onto the finger stop that extended into the trigger guard, the stock would now directly activate the trigger without the operator needing to use his finger at all. To rely on the absence of this last piece of linkage, especially when the instructions tell the user to use his finger in this capacity, it's just extremely risky. There's been no test case yet, so no one can say for certain, but even if its ruled at some point not to be a trigger activator, its so close according to the statutory definition that a person is really rolling the dice by owning one.

Is this an anti-gun opinion? Absolutely not! It's simply my honest analysis of the law as it currently exists, without injecting a pro-gun bias into it. Personally I think the trigger activator ban is stupid. I think bump stocks are stupid, I think Gat cranks are stupid, I think binary triggers are stupid, and I think the machine gun ban is stupid. If a law-abiding individual wants to purchase a real machine gun, he should be able to do so without breaking the bank. I think both the state and federal machine gun bans are stupid, and that all of the "make-believe" gadgets that allow a person to simulate full auto fire are stupid. Ideally we should just drop all of this nonsense and allow people to own the real-deal, period. I am not anti-gun, I'm just being a realist here as to existing law as written.

So why did I bring it up in the first place? Well I believe that the lawsuits against ATF are likely to succeed. The federal ban on bump stocks will most likely be struck down. But it's a different situation for those at the state level.

Up until now Lori Swanson has been the Attorney General of MN. She's a Democrat, but she's a pro-gun Democrat. I don't know if the question of bump stocks ever crossed her desk, but it's my understanding that if the question did come up, she would have taken a pro-gun stance on the issue, and not gone after law-abiding gun owners simply because they own bump stocks. This has changed recently though, we now have Keith Ellison as Attorney General. What do you think Keith Ellison's office will do if the federal ban on bump stocks is struck down, given that there's already a trigger activator ban on the books in MN? I can say with absolute certainty that within weeks if not days of the federal ban being struck down, Ellison will be on TV announcing that his office has determined that they're in fact illegal here in MN, and begin prosecuting anyone found with one. And in my humble opinion, given the law as written, I think he's likely to win the test case, settling the question on whether bump stocks are illegal in MN. At which point anyone owning one will be subject to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Ellison in the Attorney Generals office changes a lot of things for us. We used to have a friend in there, where now we have a very determined enemy. Where previously many things in the "grey area" of the law were not prosecuted with regard to guns, at this point I would expect that anything and everything that can be prosecuted with regard to guns will be. Including self defense claims. In recent years we've seen several cases of lawful self defense by a permit holder that was so obviously justified self defense, that they were never charged or prosecuted. Unfortunately, under Ellison those days might be over. I hope I'm wrong, but I would expect that every instance of lawful self defense will be prosecuted, just because they can. I'd also expect that every act of lawlessness by Antifa or leftist organizations or activists will be dropped for procedural reasons or some other nonsense. Ellison chose to move down from US Congressman to MN Attorney General for some reason, and I believe that it's probably in preparation for a future Governors office run, and to weaponize prosecutions against those he considers his political enemies. And he considers gun owners his political enemies.

Getting back to bump stocks, even if/when the federal ban is struck down, those in MN that own them are still likely going to be in significant legal risk.

Just my $0.02

Ya, that was easy, read the 1st few sentences, opposite argument made.

If you finger can be considered part of an assembly then Jerry needs to schedule his amputation.

Logical argument actually, regardless of what H&H says. Never mind him....he’s the current resident curmudgeon who likes to argue everything, no matter what the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

INOR wrote:Logical argument actually, regardless of what H&H says. Never mind him....he’s the current resident curmudgeon who likes to argue everything, no matter what the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, if you read it his agreement argues against itself.

I stated what I believe the core question is. And the arguments both for and against.

Jerry’s finger, Max’s finger, or even my finger on a pistol can approximate full auto fire. But there’s no contraption attached to the firearm in those scenarios necessary to shoot quickly. Contrast that with using a bump stock. A device is attached to the rifle that with one very minor modification doesn’t even require a human finger. And when a finger is used on a bump stock, that finger doesn’t move, the rifle does.

There *is* a possibility that this distinction would be enough for a court to rule a bump stock isn’t a trigger activator. Personally though I don’t think so. Even if a court did side with the defendant on the issue, Ellison would appeal it all the way to the MN Supreme Court. And they’re not exactly a bunch of gun friendly folks.

Justice David Lillehaug was the Attorney that sued on behalf of several churches in an attempt to strike down the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, and he now sits on the MN Supreme Court. He also authored the majority opinion that a loaded pistol in a vehicles center console is legally considered to be “carried” as opposed to being “transported”, reversing two prior court decisions that concluded the opposite. When it comes to firearms, so far it seems that the rest of the MN Supreme Court follows his lead on the subject, and he is vehemently anti-gun. To the point where he was the anti-gun lawyer chosen by gun control activists to try to strike down the “shall issue” carry law. While he’s on the court, you can expect hostility rulings to gun owners whenever possible.

If we were in a different political climate, with a gun friendly attorney general and judiciary, you may very well be right. But we’re not. We’re in occupied hostile territory. It’s one thing to make various arguments and pose various theories online. I like that ****, I think it’s fun. But if someone were to actually maintain possession of a bump stock in MN, even if the federal ban is struck down, they’d be taking a huge legal risk IMHO. And again, after a test case it might turn out how you predict. But I wouldn’t bet a McDonald’s happy meal on that, let alone $10,000 and 5 years in prison.

Anyways, we’re kinda going round and round here, and ultimately no one can actually say for sure until a test case is prosecuted. So I’ll just close it out with an agreement to disagree. And that while I Hope you’re right, I think that’s very unlikely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the argument that a bumpstock is not a trigger activator is that if it was they wouldn’t be trying to pass legislation to make it one.

I'm guessing that either through existing law or one that will be passed this session, they will be banned in MN by next summer. Whether "ban" means illegal to sell/purchase or illegal to possess depends on who is writing the bill.

Didn't seem all that informative.

Grayskies wrote:Didn't seem all that informative.

I would agree, figured with his involvement he’d say more.

More info in this article by David Codrea

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/bump-stock-lawsuit-makes-unique-points-to-seek-injunction-against-ban/#axzz5b49bqy3J

jshuberg wrote:Bump stocks fit the statutory definition of a trigger activator in every aspect, except possibly one - no part of it actually touches the trigger. However, there's a finger stop right next to the trigger guard, and the instructions are to place your finger through the trigger guard as normal, and rest it on the finger stop. In doing this, you have completed the "assembly" of a trigger activating device. If you were to screw a little piece of metal or wood or plastic onto the finger stop that extended into the trigger guard, the stock would now directly activate the trigger without the operator needing to use his finger at all. To rely on the absence of this last piece of linkage, especially when the instructions tell the user to use his finger in this capacity, it's just extremely risky. There's been no test case yet, so no one can say for certain, but even if its ruled at some point not to be a trigger activator, its so close according to the statutory definition that a person is really rolling the dice by owning one.

Is this an anti-gun opinion? Absolutely not! It's simply my honest analysis of the law as it currently exists, without injecting a pro-gun bias into it. Personally I think the trigger activator ban is stupid. I think bump stocks are stupid, I think Gat cranks are stupid, I think binary triggers are stupid, and I think the machine gun ban is stupid. If a law-abiding individual wants to purchase a real machine gun, he should be able to do so without breaking the bank. I think both the state and federal machine gun bans are stupid, and that all of the "make-believe" gadgets that allow a person to simulate full auto fire are stupid. Ideally we should just drop all of this nonsense and allow people to own the real-deal, period. I am not anti-gun, I'm just being a realist here as to existing law as written.

So why did I bring it up in the first place? Well I believe that the lawsuits against ATF are likely to succeed. The federal ban on bump stocks will most likely be struck down. But it's a different situation for those at the state level.

Up until now Lori Swanson has been the Attorney General of MN. She's a Democrat, but she's a pro-gun Democrat. I don't know if the question of bump stocks ever crossed her desk, but it's my understanding that if the question did come up, she would have taken a pro-gun stance on the issue, and not gone after law-abiding gun owners simply because they own bump stocks. This has changed recently though, we now have Keith Ellison as Attorney General. What do you think Keith Ellison's office will do if the federal ban on bump stocks is struck down, given that there's already a trigger activator ban on the books in MN? I can say with absolute certainty that within weeks if not days of the federal ban being struck down, Ellison will be on TV announcing that his office has determined that they're in fact illegal here in MN, and begin prosecuting anyone found with one. And in my humble opinion, given the law as written, I think he's likely to win the test case, settling the question on whether bump stocks are illegal in MN. At which point anyone owning one will be subject to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Ellison in the Attorney Generals office changes a lot of things for us. We used to have a friend in there, where now we have a very determined enemy. Where previously many things in the "grey area" of the law were not prosecuted with regard to guns, at this point I would expect that anything and everything that can be prosecuted with regard to guns will be. Including self defense claims. In recent years we've seen several cases of lawful self defense by a permit holder that was so obviously justified self defense, that they were never charged or prosecuted. Unfortunately, under Ellison those days might be over. I hope I'm wrong, but I would expect that every instance of lawful self defense will be prosecuted, just because they can. I'd also expect that every act of lawlessness by Antifa or leftist organizations or activists will be dropped for procedural reasons or some other nonsense. Ellison chose to move down from US Congressman to MN Attorney General for some reason, and I believe that it's probably in preparation for a future Governors office run, and to weaponize prosecutions against those he considers his political enemies. And he considers gun owners his political enemies.

Getting back to bump stocks, even if/when the federal ban is struck down, those in MN that own them are still likely going to be in significant legal risk.

Just my $0.02

Then do something about it. Your avatar seems to imply an official position. If it is stuck down federally and us found illegal at the state level then you have failed.

H&H, I’m not sure I understand what your issue is with what jshuberg posted. He’s taken a lot of time to very clearly articulate his point, and then you just keep dropping back in to lash out at him without making any counterpoints or explaining what the problem is. So what’s the deal?