I don’t give a flying **** about bump stocks. I want the courts to affirm that the executive branch does not have the power to redefine terms set in law. But, I’m most afraid this will stand because it’s the outcome powerful people want. If a plastic accessory can be redefined as a machine gun, holy ****. This was supposed to be a pro 2A President. What about the next Democrat anti-gun zealot? If this stands, what else could zhe do with this new executive power?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real
- Thread starter Hotrod29
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
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:
I agree. There's a much bigger liberty issue here.
I'm sorry, I'm still not sure what the March 6 hearing is. I haven't been able to follow up on that. If it is in the 6th circuit, I suspect it is a hearing in the court of appeals, on whether they should place a stay on the enforcement of it. If they issue a stay, then there would be no enforcement until the case is resolved. (Or at least the appeal.)
That won't be the question. The decision in the district court is that the ATF isn't re-defining anything, but interpreting the words in the statute. Congress left it to the ATF/DOJ to do that. (Yeah, I consider that legislative abdication, but the system is about 75 years old at this point.)
The next gun grabbing POTUS would have some limited options in re-definition for existing products. Any new gizmos could be in trouble, though. Like trigger groups or something like that.
Well, they did define them one way, and are now defining them the opposite way. The elephant in the room is that the terms in question don’t just apply to civil administrative law but to major criminal offenses. In criminal court, the rule of lenity is supposed to control ambiguous definitions.
The big hurdle I see in how the challenge was brought is that it seems to focus almost exclusively on administrative law with taking thrown in. I suppose they’re probably isn’t standing yet on the criminal side?
I really hope Chevron gets gutted soon. This creeping notion that the prosecutor gets to define ambiguous terms in criminal statutes is just repugnant to due process.
Unfortunately Congress has spent the last 30 years becoming incredibly comfortable with this kind of thing. They simply don't want to pass laws anymore. Passing laws means taking a stand, and taking a stand means running the risk of people voting you out. Under the new executive power system, the congresscritters can criticize or praise executive action as their pollsters dictate, forever chasing the median voter. They culturally do not like passing laws anymore, unless they have the trifecta and can steamroll the other side with party line supermajority votes.
tou described it as I understand it. So a stay is possible still?
GOA briefs:
https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Bump-Stock-Complaint-Exhibits-as-filed.pdf
https://gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf
Thanks
Yeah, the Court of Appeals and then SCOTUS can get a chance at entering a stay of enforcement pending the results of the case.
(Those appear to be the briefs filed in the district court. In the federal system, the "district" court is the same as the "trial" court.)
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the district court denied the injunction. It seems like lesser cases have at least received a temporary injunction, pending additional factual development.
I won't be surprised if the appellate courts enter a stay. And, I'll be surprised if the courts allow this ban to be enforced across the board.
But, anything can happen.
^^this is exactly it
I could care less about a bump stock. Never even tried one. That's not the point.
They're coming for the guns anyways, its inevitable. The courts aren't going to be the ones defending freedoms and saving us it will be the 2nd amendment.
@cbhausen
Hey - I just realized there are 2 cases. There's one in the DC circuit that denied the preliminary injunction and is probably going to go up on appeal for a stay.
There's another one - the GOA one - in Michigan, which is having the hearing on March 6. From what I can tell, the injunction there hasn't been denied yet.
There are rules about multidistrict ligitation, so all of these may be combined at some point.
Sorry about my incorrect speculation earlier. Basically, what I said about the appeals courts being able to issue stays is still correct, but incomplete. There's still a federal judge in Michigan that may be willing to impose an injunction, also.
Hey - I just realized there are 2 cases. There's one in the DC circuit that denied the preliminary injunction and is probably going to go up on appeal for a stay.
There's another one - the GOA one - in Michigan, which is having the hearing on March 6. From what I can tell, the injunction there hasn't been denied yet.
There are rules about multidistrict ligitation, so all of these may be combined at some point.
Sorry about my incorrect speculation earlier. Basically, what I said about the appeals courts being able to issue stays is still correct, but incomplete. There's still a federal judge in Michigan that may be willing to impose an injunction, also.
Thanks, T.Lex
So if bump-stocks are now illegal and must be turned in or destroyed, I'm sure ATF planning to go door to door to try to locate these. After all, all stocks sold were registered when you payed for them with a credit card.
This will hopefully be bottled up in courts until someone realized the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this is an infringement. Unfortunately until then, use at your discretion.
This will hopefully be bottled up in courts until someone realized the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this is an infringement. Unfortunately until then, use at your discretion.
In the DC case, the court of appeals is expediting the appeal.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/fp...-appeal-in-bumpstock-ban-cases/#axzz5hPI1yziF
That's cutting it pretty close. Hopefully the Michigan case today will issue an injunction.
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/fp...-appeal-in-bumpstock-ban-cases/#axzz5hPI1yziF
That's cutting it pretty close. Hopefully the Michigan case today will issue an injunction.
Some dude's gonna bill 100+ hours on that Reply Brief between the 13th and the 15th.
https://gunowners.org/alert3719/
"Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference … that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks … and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF."
...
"One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”
Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons — handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. — given that all these weapons are inherently “dangerous.”
GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.
Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.
This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point."
"Olson consistently made the point that the ATF did NOT deserve deference … that the agency was misapplying the federal statute regarding bump stocks … and, more importantly, that the ATF was effectively changing the statutory definition of what a machine gun is.This argument seemed to resonate with the judge, who appeared unwilling to grant deference to the ATF."
...
"One of the government’s lawyers brought up the Las Vegas shooting from 2017 as a reason to ban bump stocks. He claimed that the inherent dangerousness of bump stocks necessitated a ban for the sake of “public safety.”
Of course, if this logic were to prevail, the government could justify banning all weapons — handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. — given that all these weapons are inherently “dangerous.”
GOA’s attorney countered by telling the judge there is no actual proof of one recorded instance where bump stocks have been used in a crime.
Olson even cited the lack of FBI and ATF statements, studies or reports to demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that a bump stock was actually used by the Las Vegas shooter.
This was something of a “mic drop” moment, because when given the chance to respond, the government’s lawyer could not — in fact, he refused to — counter Olson’s statement on this point."
Wait.
The DOJ lawyer couldn't even assert that a bumpstock was used in Las Vegas?
That's awesome.
Well. Not for that lawyer. That would suck.
I believe there was an ATF finding that a bumpstock was used. Now, if there's no underlying support for that conclusion, that opens up a huge gap in the defense of the ban. It starts looking "arbitrary and capricious," which is a bad thing for the DOJ and a good thing for bumpstock owners.
The DOJ lawyer couldn't even assert that a bumpstock was used in Las Vegas?
That's awesome.
Well. Not for that lawyer. That would suck.
I believe there was an ATF finding that a bumpstock was used. Now, if there's no underlying support for that conclusion, that opens up a huge gap in the defense of the ban. It starts looking "arbitrary and capricious," which is a bad thing for the DOJ and a good thing for bumpstock owners.
Yeah, the whole deal is weird. For a guy who's going to break the law anyway, the bump stock thing seems stupid to me. He could have spent a couple of hours Googling and figured out a way to do conversions.
I’ve posted this before, in the FOIA dumps pertaining to vegas there were many, many pages about DIASes, including a new design, and an email saying San bernadino was carried out with a DIAS.
in context it seems like it wasn’t JUST bumpstocks in Vegas, like many have held since the beginning
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Gauging interest in a Darryl Bolke Bryan Eastridge class- Latest: Patrick Taylor