quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Something I could conceive of would be, “Okay, we got our collective dicks knocked in the dirt on the bumpstock thing, so we’re going to stop issuing ‘It’s okay’ rulings. Do what you want, and if at some point in the future after seeing how it functions (and if it’s used to kill a bunch of people) we decide it’s illegal, we’ll issue that ruling then. That way we won’t be liable for telling anyone they can go ahead and manufacture and sell the things.”

As strange as it sounds, I'd be ok with this. And here's why: the gun industry, apart from being highly regulated, is not so different from any other industries where inventors, investors, and speculators have to balance risk v. innovation.

Let's say I invent something new: a fixed-blade knife that has a handle that can go from being 8" long to 6' long with the push of a button and is propelled by compressed gas. So, basically, like the spear from Predator. I bear the risk if this new product is ruled a "switchblade" or something else. No one from the gov't is telling me it's ok to make these things. No one is responsible to comp me if they turn out to be illegal.

But, in this case, the gov't did say that it bump stocks were legal for their intended purpose. People relied on that ruling, now they're losing money. The gov't now wants us to turn them in for no compensation? That's why we have the 5th amendment. The founding fathers got tired of "all property is the King's property" behavior by loyalists.

Why do we have laws? Most people would say "societal order" and "so people don't do bad stuff" etc. I would argue that increasingly, law exists for the purpose of economic stability. Law creates order, order creates stability, stability drives investment, which drives innovation. The economy doesn't prosper when people don't feel like they can guess what will happen next. When people don't know what will happen next, that's when they start sequestering assets in foreign markets, or under their mattress. BATFE's shift over bumpstocks sets a dangerous precedent in regulation of any industry where innovation up to the letter of the law is occurring. Folks who don't care about bumpstocks need to understand that "liberal" re-interpretation of the NFA happened under a conservative administration. What do you think an anti-gun administration would be able to do with this? Maybe your 10+ round magazine would be a machinegun because, hey, if you don't have to change mags every ten rounds, that increases your rate of fire doesn't it? Turn them in, without compensation. If you can bumpfire a semi-auto without a bumpstock, doesn't that mean that semi-autos are inherently "machinegun simulators" just like bumpstocks? Turn them in without compensation. Or, you can keep your semi-auto, but you have to turn in all your 2+ round magazines, because a semi-auto can bumpfire 2+ rounds, so all magazines that fit in semi-autos must only hold 1 round to prevent the semi-auto from being bumpfired. Turn in your 2+ round magazines, without compensation.

By offering assurance, through the issuance of opinion letters, the gov't is providing some semblance of stability to the firearms market. Sure, it's not as binding as legislation or precedent via the courts, but it's still something, and this particular letter was issued without mistake, duress, or fraud (FTB knew what the stock was for, the "send it in on a gun" thing is just a bureaucratic BS way of slowing down the submissions process). Like I said in an earlier post, this isn't just some wildcat innovation that's testing the market simply by existing. This product was signed off on, by the preeminent law-enforcement agency assigned to regulate firearms and firearms accessories. This goes well beyond caveat emptor.

Take away the "it's ok" letters and the firearms industry is just like everyone else: manufacturers initially bear the risk, and then consumers (without false assurance from the gov't on the legality of a product). Does it chill the spirit of innovation? Absolutely. It also means fewer risky products get to market and consumers don't lose money because they bought on the pretense of false assurances.

Thanks, LDD; good observations.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Thanks, LDD; good observations.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It certainly will. I think the biggest indicator will be if GOA* can get an injunction against the effective date of enforcement. * Or any other group also seeking an injunction.

One of the factors for a court granting an injunction is the probability of success on the merits (likelihood of the proponent of the injunction winning, should the case go to trial).

I am familiar with the Akins Accelerator case, but in that scenario, the original plaintiff was Akins. Their claim, IIRC, was to "lost profits" if the court ruled against them. Courts are generally reluctant to favor that argument because who knows how much money someone could potential make if they were allowed to sell their product they way they wanted to. In this case, I believe GOA is coming in from the consumer side: i.e. "we already bought these, here are our receipts." No speculation as to lost value.

There's still the "one function" argument and the "for public use" arguments to be heard as well.