Trump bump stock rule overturned
- Thread starter Armybrat
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
motorcarman
Compulsive Collector
What the Bump Stock Rule Change Portends for ATF-Fabricated Rules
A court ruling that struck the Trump-era rule banning bump stocks could have a much wider-reaching impact than just the plastic accessory.
www.ammoland.com
cycleguy2300
TGT Addict
What I need to know is if I found a bumpstock in my closet, which I thought I had destroyed. Would I be in the clear?
Asking for a friend or a friend of course...
In all seriousness, never had had a bump stock and don't want one, but F the ATF for all their infringements.
Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
Asking for a friend or a friend of course...
In all seriousness, never had had a bump stock and don't want one, but F the ATF for all their infringements.
Надіслано з дому вашої мами за допомогою Tapatalk
Not a problem if you find it. Now, if the ATF finds it.......
Somewhat related:
The Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to block enforcement of new gun regulations New York state enacted in July after the justices ruled a previous state law requiring individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain concealed-weapons permits violated the Second Amendment.
And before anyone reacts:
he Supreme Court’s order denying that request provided no explanation, as is typical. In a separate statement, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the Second Circuit had provided no explanation for its decision to leave the law in force during the appeal.
The gun owners “should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Justice Alito wrote.
The Supreme Court doesn’t ordinarily intervene in cases before lower-court litigation concludes, and the action might not be the justices’ final word on the matter. After the Second Circuit makes its decision, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to block enforcement of new gun regulations New York state enacted in July after the justices ruled a previous state law requiring individuals to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain concealed-weapons permits violated the Second Amendment.
And before anyone reacts:
he Supreme Court’s order denying that request provided no explanation, as is typical. In a separate statement, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that the Second Circuit had provided no explanation for its decision to leave the law in force during the appeal.
The gun owners “should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal,” Justice Alito wrote.
The Supreme Court doesn’t ordinarily intervene in cases before lower-court litigation concludes, and the action might not be the justices’ final word on the matter. After the Second Circuit makes its decision, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Fifth Circuit has finalized its ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court to reverse its decision:
Bump stocks legal in TX, LA, and https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fifth-circuit-mandates-ruling-in-favor-of-plaintiff-in-cargill-v-garland-legalizing-bump-stocks-in-three-states/MS!
Bump stocks legal in TX, LA, and https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fifth-circuit-mandates-ruling-in-favor-of-plaintiff-in-cargill-v-garland-legalizing-bump-stocks-in-three-states/MS!
No, SCOTUS will not uphold this ruling. The ATF is not appealing. They're looking for a better case (better for them, of course) to take to SCOTUS. In the near term, this is a huge delaying tactic.
In the long term, it means getting this finally sorted will take a long damn time.
For now, only residents of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi benefit from the decision. The benefit is pretty illusory, though. I certainly wouldn't want to be the first person to show up at the range with my bumpstock...that I 3D printed from design files gotten from the internet. Of course.
Those who lost in the other circuits have already appealed to SCOTUS and been denied.
Besides, the losses in other circuits weren't incompatible with the legal questions in the Fifth Circuit. The losses in the other circuits were based on different issues (takings and reasonableness, IIRC) so there's no conflict between circuits. Until there is, I think SCOTUS will stay hands-off.
Fifth Circuit decided in Cargill that ATF couldn't run roughshod over established administrative procedure to create new felonies; only Congress can do that. Stated another way, Congress writes the United States Code and agencies write the Code of Federal Regulations in accordance with the US Code. The ATF has created a situation where the CFR disagrees with the USC. That's not supposed to happen.
On that basis, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court ruling. No other court has addressed that question in that way. If the ATF doesn't appeal, the whole thing drops out of sight until another circuit disagrees with the Fifth or Congress passes legislation to change the wording of the NFA to somehow include bumpstocks.
I'm sure another circuit will eventually disagree and SCOTUS will finally hear arguments about bumpstocks. It's just going to take a long time to start another case based on Cargill that will lose all the way through another circuit. Then we'll have a disagreement between circuits that SCOTUS should address.
The bumpstock ban was ~5 years ago. It will take years more to reach a final resolution.
I guess I'm just seeing this as a glass half-empty situation. I'll take it but I'm not close to being ready to celebrate.
Lonesome Dove
A man of vision but with no mission.
I never missed the contraption and didn't care for it when it was first introduced. I can't be the only one here. Or??????.
I never cared for it, never owned one, never wanted one, but I damn sure want one now that Trump told me I can’t have one.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The issue is that the government agency did not apply the law; they 'made' law, which is not their role.
Lonesome Dove
A man of vision but with no mission.
Not any more irrelevant than your backlash of a comment. Thanks for playing.
General Zod
TGT Addict
It never mattered to me one way or the other. What did matter was a felony being created out of thin air, independent of any actual legislated law. Even if that new felony had nothing to do with me, if it's allowed to stand the next one might. Bump stocks one day, why not magazine capacity the next? Or scary looking rifles? Creating law via executive order and through a federal agency is unconstitutional and there's no good reason to turn a blind eye to it.
Latest posts
-
-
Are S&W M&P 9 full size (Gen 1) & Shield Gen 1 good pistols?
- Latest: TEXAS "All or nothing"
-
-
