Bump Stock Ban Lawsuits?

Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.

50:50 that it will be stopped? I would think that with the multiple lawsuits and the nature of the suits that it will at least be postponed until a final ruling can be made?

Wegahe said:

Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.

Click to expand...

Wegahe said:

Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have ever told a client that.

well, in the law nothing is certain but the expense.

I always told them the chances were 50/50. We would win or lose.

But with facts, circumstances and case law we had a poor, fair, good, or excellent chance of getting what we wanted.

Nemo

Bumpstocks and pie #ilikepie

http://instagr.am/p/BuHugmcnY20%2F/

Malum Prohibitum said:

I don't think I have ever told a client that.

Click to expand...

Your clients must have never asked you what their odds of winning were.

Wegahe said:

Any lawyer will tell you when you walk into the courtroom the best odds you can get are 50/50.

Click to expand...

I can't claim never to have said that, but it's not the norm.

I voted "No" only based on the compensation argument made in the OP article. I don't want to see the ban overturned due to lack of compensation. That could potentially be rectified and then the ban still stands. I want to see the ban permanently overturned because the ATF is basing their ban off of purely political motivations and also claiming that "A" magically becomes "B" based on violating known physical laws.

moe mensale said:

I don't want to see the ban overturned due to lack of compensation.

Click to expand...

I think you're in luck. The remedy for lack of compensation is compensation, not undoing the taking.

Wegahe said:

Your clients must have never asked you what their odds of winning were.

Click to expand...

That's a silly assumption to make, and a non sequitur.

tmoore912 said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100379711262416896

Click to expand...

Prompting the immediate filing of an appeal to the DC Court of Appeals.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/ap...administrations-bump-stock-ban/#axzz5gfdSgxNa

A Notice of Appeal requesting was filed Monday by attorneys Stephen D. Stemboulieh and Alan Alexander Beck with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after the United States District Court issued an order denying a preliminary injunction in challenges to the Trump administration's "bump stock" ban. The appeal "would further request expedited treatment in this appeal due to the urgency of the Final Rule going into effect on March 26, 2019."

Click to expand...

Gee, it's almost is if they expected the lower court to ignore the law.

David Codrea article and the ruling.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/ap...dge-rules-for-administrations-bump-stock-ban/

She further admits that critical terms such as "single function of the trigger" and "automatically" are "ambiguous,"

Click to expand...

WTH?!?
ambiguous
[am-big-yoo-uhs]
adjective
open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations

That article made my head hurt!

Craftsman said:

Gee, it's almost is if they expected the lower court to ignore the law.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that was just coincidence. :lol:

LAWSUITS

Litigation Highlight: No Compensation for Bump Stock Owners

By Jake Charles on Friday, October 25, 2019

https://sites.law.duke.edu/secondth...hlight-no-compensation-for-bump-stock-owners/

Bump stock owners forced to destroy devices can't get compensation from federal government, judge says
https://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-dismissed-1467834?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true