Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

[Ingomike]

They are "wishy washy" because they are made up of thousands of members.
So, it depends what group is in charge.

Like most other things the NRA is a very different organization than it was 60-90 years ago. And will likely be just as different in another 60-90 years...

 

[Jaybird1980]

The point is, the "compromise" I floated would not be a compromise, but a scorched earth victory in favor of of 2A.

Except it would eliminate braces, and therefore put people with a disability at a loss. I get what you were going for, should've used bump stocks instead of pistol braces. Then we could have best of everything.

 

[TrueSeanamus]

Except it would eliminate braces, and therefore put people with a disability at a loss. I get what you were going for, should've used bump stocks instead of pistol braces. Then we could have best of everything.

Wait, people unironically use braces as braces? Especially for “pistols”? n-not that id ever shoulder a not-a-stock brace!

 

[TrueSeanamus]

They are "wishy washy" because they are made up of thousands of members.
So, it depends what group is in charge.

So basically no group has ever been in charge that tries to overturn the Hughes amendment, undo import bans, kill the 68 GCA (especially the asinine “sporting purposes” nonsense and import ban)? How about the NRA stops sucking up to fudds (a shrinking demographic of gun owners) and actually defend everyone’s rights?

maybe they will get better when all the endowment life members keel over in another 30 or so years and stop telling them we don’t need those a salt wapens, just get a good ol shotgun!

purple is for sarcasm right?

 

[GIJEW]

There's strength in numbers. That and the NRA is big and has name recognition--I'm sure that matters when talking to pols. Send your $ to the org. of your choice--and tell the NRA why they didn't get any--and stay focused on the real fight, and the real enemy
"Either we stand together or we shall assuredly hang separately"--B. Franklin

 

[Lilboog82]

has there been any updates lately about the bumbstock ban court fight?

 

[wcd]

Yeah. Like they can afford to feed a full auto anything at these ammo prices.

22lr maybe

 

[cbhausen]

This might end up before SCOTUS after all:

 

[MCgrease08]

The 5th Circuit considers whether the Trump administration was legally authorized to ban bump stocks

Three years ago, a federal ban on "bump-stock-type devices" took effect, transforming otherwise law-abiding owners of such firearm accessories into…

reason.com

 

[Destro]

The 5th Circuit considers whether the Trump administration was legally authorized to ban bump stocks

Three years ago, a federal ban on "bump-stock-type devices" took effect, transforming otherwise law-abiding owners of such firearm accessories into…

reason.com

Activist judges.

 

[BJHay]

Despite its severe and startling consequences, that ban was never approved by Congress. It was unilaterally imposed by the Trump administration, which expanded the statutory definition of "machinegun" to include bump stocks and rifles equipped with them.

Gun rights are my gateway political issue. We can say 'who cares about bump stocks" but the novel mechanism Trump used is likely to be successful in the courts (whether I think it's illegal is not relevant). That method is now in the tool box of those wanting to take other rights from citizens. Trumps action was much more impactful then many realize.

 

[KLB]

Gun rights are my gateway political issue. We can say 'who cares about bump stocks" but the novel mechanism Trump used is likely to be successful in the courts (whether I think it's illegal is not relevant). That method is now in the tool box of those wanting to take other rights from citizens. Trumps action was much more impactful then many realize.

Actually, I don't think you are correct. Agencies can "interpret" things, but they can't legally rewrite laws. A machinegun has a specific definition in the law, and they are ignoring that and making it what they want it to be.

 

[MCgrease08]

Actually, I don't think you are correct. Agencies can "interpret" things, but they can't legally rewrite laws. A machinegun has a specific definition in the law, and they are ignoring that and making it what they want it to be.

That seems to be the crux of the lawsuits.

Since the lawsuits were filed, the Supreme Court also ruled against the EPA which had been directed by the Biden Regime to begin regulating GHG emissions without being given the authority by congress to do so. That decision seems very relevant to what the ATF is trying to do here too. I hope it results in a clear victory for gun rights and severally limits an agency's ability to interpret anything without input from congress. The legislative branch has been outsourcing their responsibility to bureaucrats for far too long.

 

[ditcherman]

Actually, I don't think you are correct. Agencies can "interpret" things, but they can't legally rewrite laws. A machinegun has a specific definition in the law, and they are ignoring that and making it what they want it to be.

"legally" is out the window anymore it seems. They'll do what they want.

 

[HoughMade]

Actually, I don't think you are correct. Agencies can "interpret" things, but they can't legally rewrite laws. A machinegun has a specific definition in the law, and they are ignoring that and making it what they want it to be.

You are correct and like many things legislative, the definition of "machinegun" is not the model of clarity. There is ambiguity in the statute and an agency can determine, within the statutory definition, what it will enforce...until a court with jurisdiction finds the definition it uses incorrect. HOWEVER, the judge and/or jury, when there is a prosecution, ultimately determines what the definition is that will be applied for actual criminal liability.

[ETA]- To clarify, in this case, there is a statutory definition and the ATF has no power to change that. What the ATF can do is decide how to view any ambiguity, but that is not binding on any court or jury. The ATF's view guides its enforcement, but is, in no way, law. However, there can be pretty dire consequences to defending your innocence in terms of time, reputation and money.

In different situations, Congress delegates rulemaking authority to an agency (this is not one of those times) and then, the agency can make rules and regulations (which are enforceable law) within the grant of power from the legislature (signed into law, etc.).

 

[JAL]

You are correct and like many things legislative, the definition of "machinegun" is not the model of clarity. There is ambiguity in the statute and an agency can determine, within the statutory definition, what it will enforce...until a court with jurisdiction finds the definition it uses incorrect. HOWEVER, the judge and/or jury, when there is a prosecution, ultimately determines what the definition is that will be applied for actual criminal liability.

[ETA]- To clarify, in this case, there is a statutory definition and the ATF has no power to change that. What the ATF can do is how to view any ambiguity, but that is not binding on any court or jury. The ATF's view guides its enforcement, but is, in no way, law. However, there can be pretty dire consequences to defending your innocence in terms of time, reputation and money.

In different situations, Congress delegates rulemaking authority to an agency (this is not one of those times) and then, the agency can make rules and regulations (which are enforceable law) within the grant of power from the legislature (signed into law, etc.).

I believe the same applies to the "Forced Reset Trigger" interpretation of "machinegun" ATF has used with the same convoluted logic it devised for the bump stocks. This is the slippery slope used by bureaucratic agencies to justify doing what they want to versus what they're authorized and allowed to.

A criminal case to watch is last week's indictment of a dude in Massachusetts for possession of FRT's, among a host of other stuff he shouldn't have, including several dozen Glock switches. The FRT part of it is the least of his woes. Nevertheless, the parallel between FRT and bump stock, and how AFT is defining them as machineguns cannot be ignored.

John

 

[BE Mike]

So basically no group has ever been in charge that tries to overturn the Hughes amendment, undo import bans, kill the 68 GCA (especially the asinine “sporting purposes” nonsense and import ban)? How about the NRA stops sucking up to fudds (a shrinking demographic of gun owners) and actually defend everyone’s rights?

maybe they will get better when all the endowment life members keel over in another 30 or so years and stop telling them we don’t need those a salt wapens, just get a good ol shotgun!

purple is for sarcasm right?

Gun owners would be much better off without the slobs who take their semi-auto rifles and pistols out and tear up ranges and the woods, shooting as fast as they can and leaving their trash behind. It wasn't that long ago that Indiana was not a shall issue state regarding handgun licenses. Few licenses were issued unless on had political muscle. Apparently some younger folks don't appreciate the fights that went on long before they were around. "Everyone's rights", include hunters and competitive shooters among all the legal gun owners who keep firearms for self-defense. Divisive blabbering just strengthens the antis.

 

[JAL]

Gun owners would be much better off without the slobs who take their semi-auto rifles and pistols out and tear up ranges and the woods, shooting as fast as they can and leaving their trash behind. It wasn't that long ago that Indiana was not a shall issue state regarding handgun licenses. Few licenses were issued unless on had political muscle. Apparently some younger folks don't appreciate the fights that went on long before they were around. "Everyone's rights", include hunters and competitive shooters among all the legal gun owners who keep firearms for self-defense. Divisive blabbering just strengthens the antis.

Spoken in true ad hominem fashion. This is an excellent example of it.

John

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Gun owners would be much better off without the slobs who take their semi-auto rifles and pistols out and tear up ranges and the woods, shooting as fast as they can and leaving their trash behind.

Yeah, those Remington Model 24's and Marlin Model 60's ruined it for everyone. Nobody needs a semi-auto for squirrel hunting!

 

[TrueSeanamus]

Yeah, those Remington Model 24's and Marlin Model 60's ruined it for everyone. Nobody needs a semi-auto for squirrel hunting!

I use an AR16. It just evaporates them.