Interesting Post from Chicopee PD regarding bump stocks.

VetteGirlMA

VetteGirlMA

NES Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
9,033
Likes
22,381
Location
western mass
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Here is the text that they posted on Facebook this morning... My question is how is this legally possible? How can they take something and destroy it without compensation of any kind? If anyone from Comm2A would like to comment I would welcome any opinion.


----------------------
***NEW BUMP STOCK/TRIGGER CRANK LAW***
We are sharing this new law, enacted by the State Legislature. This is MASS GENERAL LAW, not the rules of the Chicopee Police Department.

The Legislature has passed a new ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks. The law takes effect Feb. 01, 2018. As of that date it is illegal to possess and or sell any of these type of items. The law grants a 90 grace period to anyone who already owns one of these items. The grace period starts on Feb. 01, 2018 and ends 90 days after that date. During the grace period anyone that owns one of these items are to turn it over to the police department to be tagged for destruction. There are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even for someone with a machine gun LTC.

Again, this is MASS GENERAL LAW, enacted by the State Legislature. We just want everyone aware of this new changed. Thank You.

Ofc Michael Wilk, PIO
Chicopee Police Department
 
Um doesn't the MGL classify these as a machine gun and therefore legal for ownership if someone has a green card (or as they call it, a machine gun LTC)? I believe, but IANAL that the exception with bump stocks is that they're not a valid reason you can use to apply for a green card.
 
MAJoe said:
Um doesn't the MGL classify these as a machine gun and therefore legal for ownership if someone has a green card (or as they call it, a machine gun LTC)? I believe, but IANAL that the exception with bump stocks is that they're not a valid reason you can use to apply for a green card.
Click to expand...

that was my understanding as well, I'm curious how far did the chief had to reach up his a**h*** to pull this one out.

Vettegirl, can you follow up, may be call them and ask where this "interpretation" came from, do they have a staff lawyers that edumacate police occifers or the occifers themselves be edumacated enough. DA will prosecute the offenders so s/he got to be somehow involved in providing guidance on whom to SWAT.
 
Drop your unwanted trigger device in a medium USPS flat rate box, I'll pay shipping. :)
During the grace period anyone that owns one of these items are to turn it over to the police department to be tagged for destruction. There are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even for someone with a machine gun LTC.
Click to expand...
Why would the owner turn this over to CPD for destruction instead of sending it to a free state to live out it's life on a farm?
 
The Fifth Amendment and Takings of Private Property
'Taking of Private Property'
Let us repeat the question that Ackerman says we can't answer without philosophy: Legally speaking, what does it mean for a government to "take property" and thereby acquire a constitutional duty to pay just compensation? There is one easy and obvious case. It is that of a government using its power of direct appropriation" -- a formal transfer of ownership of some asset from a private person or firm to the government, effected at the demand of the government and without regard to the desires of the private person or firm. In all such cases, a "taking" of that asset has undoubtedly occurred, for which a payment of just compensation is constitutionally required. Courts have also found it easy to conclude that such a constitutionally compensable "taking" occurs when a government, without bothering with the formality of a direct appropriation, effects what Justice Scalia calls the "functional equivalent" by its actual conduct on the ground -- as by taking over full possession of a privately owned parcel of land, excluding the private owner, and, in general, treating the land to all intents and purposes just as if it owned it.
Click to expand...

So is the "taking" of a bump stock for the purpose of its destruction with an ostensible goal of safety a "public use"? If so, what is the value of the stock?
 
Last edited:
OnTheRoad said:
The Fifth Amendment and Takings of Private Property
'Taking of Private Property'


So is the "taking" of a bump stock for the purpose of its destruction with an ostensible goal of safety a "public use"? If so, what is the value of the stock?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if there was an equivalent of this type of taking, i.e. "you can't have this shit". The taking was usually refered to land, for some plausible reason of public benefit. These are just my guesses. I don't recollect anyone in history saying, you can't have this ... unless it was master talking to his slave.
 
The fact that they even care or bothered to post a bulletin about this, is retarded. Don't they have better things to worry about than this horseshit?

IIRC this was also one of the douche LTC towns (might still be?) at one point, so this doesn't surprise me.

-Mike
 
Boris said:
I'm not sure if there was an equivalent of this type of taking, i.e. "you can't have this shit". The taking was usually refered to land, for some plausible reason of public benefit. These are just my guesses. I don't recollect anyone in history saying, you can't have this ... unless it was master talking to his slave.
Click to expand...
I think they use the property as an example since this is the most common form of governmental taking, "eminent domain". Either way, the government is taking something that is yours from you without your consent and as such, you are entitled to due process and fair compensation for its loss.
 
drgrant said:
The fact that they even care or bothered to post a bulletin about this, is retarded. Don't they have better things to worry about than this horseshit?

IIRC this was also one of the douche LTC towns (might still be?) at one point, so this doesn't surprise me.

-Mike
Click to expand...
first off, I don't agree with the reinterpretation post an any fashion. giving it some thought and knowing how out of touch many gun owners are with legislation changes, i would appreciate straight public service announcements using other media sources of law changes to keep clueless gun owners from getting jammed up
 
namedpipes said:
Didn't they reach the $3k neighborhood a couple months ago?
Click to expand...
After Slide Fire resumed sales, prices dropped back down to "normal" range; $90-$350 depending on the model.

With state bans certain and a future Federal ban on possession likely, I can't see spending even that much.

OnTheRoad said:
I think they use the property as an example since this is the most common form of governmental taking, "eminent domain". Either way, the government is taking something that is yours from you without your consent and as such, you are entitled to due process and fair compensation for its loss.
Click to expand...

The “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment also applies to personal property, but might not work against a Federal ban on bump stock possession -- the inventor of the Akins accelerator sued (Akins v. U.S., 82 Fed. Cl. 619 (2008)), but his takings claim was dismissed.
 
Kevin_NH said:
After Slide Fire resumed sales, prices dropped back down to "normal" range; $90-$350 depending on the model.

With state bans certain and a future Federal ban on possession likely, I can't see spending even that much.
Click to expand...

My guess is that there was also a splurge of certain buyers secretly hoping that these stocks would become NFA devices and basically get you a free amnesty machine gun registration..... having an amnesty gets rid of the "takings" problem.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
My guess is that there was also a splurge of certain buyers secretly hoping that these stocks would become NFA devices and basically get you a free amnesty machine gun registration..... having an amnesty gets rid of the "takings" problem.
Click to expand...
To be honest, that's why I made my "I'll pay the shipping" offer up above :D

I figure the amnesty scenario at 2000-to-1 odds.
 
Kevin_NH said:
To be honest, that's why I made my "I'll pay the shipping" offer up above :D

I figure the amnesty scenario at 2000-to-1 odds.
Click to expand...

I think it might be better than that if they actually make a stupid law over it- because then you have the clear position of "Well, this clearly WAS NOT illegal for some period of time, but now it is illegal, therefore a takings issue is clearly IN PLAY" Much like the Street Sweeper DD thing. Unlike say, as a contrast, the Aikins accelerator thing where the ATF gets to maintain that the thing was never legal to begin with...

Or....



or for DeusEx fans



Tinfoil ulterior motive: There's a few handfuls of rich douchebags with 30K RR lowers/RDIAS etc that, in an "Invisible Hand" kind of way.... petitioned the NRA to tell the ATF to "reinterpret" the MG definition to ban bump stocks, to completely and solidly forestall any possibility of an amnesty happening and basically eviscerating the value of their overpriced/inflated RDIAS, LL, or RR lower M16....

Before anyone busts my balls- I know plenty of NFA guys who would welcome this stuff- they don't buy for "value". But I also know that there are a bunch of flaming douchebags that would lose their shit if their M16(s) lost 2/3rds of its value overnight...

-Mike
 
Did I miss something or muddle recollection? I understood that the new MA law allowed possession of a bump stock if you have a machine gun license?

Chicopee is claiming their PSA is based on a notice provided to all MA police depts.
 
namedpipes said:
Did I miss something or muddle recollection? I understood that the new MA law allowed possession of a bump stock if you have a machine gun license?

Chicopee is claiming their PSA is based on a notice provided to all MA police depts.
Click to expand...

That's the way I read it. OK to possess with an MG licence but can't be used as a reason for getting an MG license.

Of course CPD also called it a machinegun LTC and I'm pretty sure you can't carry a MG even with a license.
 
42! said:
That's the way I read it. OK to possess with an MG licence but can't be used as a reason for getting an MG license.

Of course CPD also called it a machinegun LTC and I'm pretty sure you can't carry a MG even with a license.
Click to expand...

That's the way it is to be read, actual text of the bill: "SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks."

So all they did was classify a bump stock as a machine gun... when do the actual general laws get published which has the above quoted section actually in the MGL's?
 
RImike said:
That's the way it is to be read, actual text of the bill: "SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks."

So all they did was classify a bump stock as a machine gun... when do the actual general laws get published which has the above quoted section actually in the MGL's?
Click to expand...

IIRC (which is questionable) they banned any transfers but you could keep it if you HAVE a machine gun "LTC" <sic>
 

Similar threads

Post-ban High Capacity Magazines
Replies
6
Views
365
CrackPot
CrackPot
Does anyone have recent experience with Lowell PD LTC issuance?
Replies
18
Views
860
LTCRN
LTCRN
Boston PD Denial for 1990 OUI
Replies
28
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
Anyone see the Ware PD commentary on the gun control law?
Replies
19
Views
916
whacko
whacko
Glock in MA - Visiting from FL
Replies
12
Views
637
appraiser
appraiser
Back
Top Bottom