US Appeals court rules bump stock devices are not ‘machine guns’

[Swordsmyth]

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that bump stock accessories cannot be considered “machine guns” and thus not subjected to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ban.

On Dec. 26, 2018, ATF classified plastic bump stock accessories as “machine guns” defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, despite them having no ability to fire on their own. The move came after former President Donald Trump’s Feb. 20, 2018 memo ordering the Attorney General to develop the ban, which was spurred by reactions to the deadly Oct. 2017 Las Vegas shooting carried out using bump stocks affixed to rifles.

“The district court erred by finding that the ATF’s Final Rule, which interpreted the meaning of a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), was entitled to Chevron deference,” the 6th Circuit ruling said, in reversing the district court’s decision.

“And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled.”

The ruling comes two years after the ATF’s ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, illegalizing an estimated 500,000 bump stock accessories owned by Americans.

The case was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.

“Today’s court decision is great news and told gun owners what they already knew,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told American Military News. “We are glad the court finally applied the statute accurately and struck down the ATF’s illegal overreach and infringement of gun owners’ rights.”

More at: https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...-machine-guns/

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

[TheTexan]

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

Yup. He made himself look like he was advancing the anti-gun agenda, but in reality he knew that they knew that we knew, that he knew that we knew, that this would all come to fruition in 2021, and Biden is still scratching his head wondering how this small victory for us affects the greater plan, meanwhile the gears are already in motion, to return glory back to America, and the gun grabbers don't even see the plan because they won't see it until Trump is back in the White House in 2022 and all the preparation and planning will finally become obvious only after its too late for them to stop us.

Trump won this game before the other side even sat down to the board.

[TheTexan]

Trump's genius pretty much just never ceases to astound me.

Brilliant move on his part.

[Swordsmyth]

Yup. He made himself look like he was advancing the anti-gun agenda, but in reality he knew that they knew that we knew, that he knew that we knew, that this would all come to fruition in 2021, and Biden is still scratching his head wondering how this small victory for us affects the greater plan, meanwhile the gears are already in motion, to return glory back to America, and the gun grabbers don't even see the plan because they won't see it until Trump is back in the White House in 2022 and all the preparation and planning will finally become obvious only after its too late for them to stop us.

Trump won this game before the other side even sat down to the board.

He nipped much worse gun control in the bud with a sure to die ban on a useless gimmick while setting up a case to limit bureaucratic interpretation of the law.

[TheTexan]

He nipped much worse gun control in the bud with a sure to die ban on a useless gimmick while setting up a case to limit bureaucratic interpretation of the law.

Yup, he probably set the gun-grabbers back 20-25 years on their agenda with that one.

[jkr]

G
O
A
!

[navy-vet]

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that bump stock accessories cannot be considered “machine guns” and thus not subjected to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ban.

On Dec. 26, 2018, ATF classified plastic bump stock accessories as “machine guns” defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, despite them having no ability to fire on their own. The move came after former President Donald Trump’s Feb. 20, 2018 memo ordering the Attorney General to develop the ban, which was spurred by reactions to the deadly Oct. 2017 Las Vegas shooting carried out using bump stocks affixed to rifles.

“The district court erred by finding that the ATF’s Final Rule, which interpreted the meaning of a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), was entitled to Chevron deference,” the 6th Circuit ruling said, in reversing the district court’s decision.

“And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled.”

The ruling comes two years after the ATF’s ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, illegalizing an estimated 500,000 bump stock accessories owned by Americans.

The case was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.

“Today’s court decision is great news and told gun owners what they already knew,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told American Military News. “We are glad the court finally applied the statute accurately and struck down the ATF’s illegal overreach and infringement of gun owners’ rights.”

More at: https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...-machine-guns/

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

Yes sir you called that one right SM!

[Anti Federalist]

Well I'll be dipped...good.

[TheCount]

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

You don't have to suck his gold-plated dick anymore; he's gone.

[pcosmar]

; he's gone.

I'm not a big gambler,, but I would not Bet on That.

[enhanced_deficit]

Trump won this game before the other side even sat down to the board.

^this.

He knew what he was doing when he picked SOCTUS final deciders, all part of his genius "Save America" plan.
Unfortunately minor hiccup in handling of all of the "Stop The Steal" election court cases, other than that great vision.
Keep sending money (but not to RNC) to keep the political battles going and defeat the anti-due process , anti-second amend Left.

[oyarde]

The court is right , we should all have machineguns , leave the bumpstocks for elementary school students

[TheCount]

I'm not a big gambler,, but I would not Bet on That.

Well you also thought that the election would be overturned, and that if it wasn't, a war would start.

[Pericles]

Two other circuits have ruled in favor of the ATF on this - setting up a to the SCOTUS, or not ...

[Swordsmyth]

I'm not a big gambler,, but I would not Bet on That.

[Swordsmyth]

Well you also thought that the election would be overturned, and that if it wasn't, a war would start.

Both of those may yet happen.

[phill4paul]

ml

You don't have to suck his gold-plated dick anymore; he's gone.

Dayum, Swordy triggered the $#@! out of you. LMAO!

[Occam's Banana]

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

Oh. This again ...

If the courts are going to beat down Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws, then why wouldn't they beat down the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws? Or to state things the other way around, if the courts are at all likely to allow the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws, then why wouldn't they be at least as likely (if not more) to allow Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws?

If they WOULD beat down the Democrats' crap, then why does Trump need to do anything? But if they would NOT beat down the Democrats' crap, then why should anyone expect them to beat down Trump's?

IOW: Either Trump's crap is pointless and unnecessary at best (at worst, it is counter-productively dangerous if it does manage to pass judicial muster), or it is not a ploy ...

I disagree with Trump about this either way but the difference is that one is a regulation that the BATFE has already admitted it doesn't have the authority to issue and the other would be an act of Congress that the courts would give more deference to.

But this just puts it under the best-case "pointless and unnecessary" branch of the "either-or" I presented. (And it could end up under the worst-case "counter-productively dangerous" scenario if the BATFE decides to change its mind.)

What is the point of issuing a regulatory EO that won't be enforced? How is an unenforced EO (or an enforced one, for that matter) supposed to preempt or beat down the Democrats' gun-grabbing efforts in any way? And if, as you say, the courts would give greater deference to an act of Congress, then why should the Democrats feel at all inhibited or stymied by Trump's supposedly toothless EO? Indeed, it seems that just the opposite should be the case. After all, sharks don't go away when there's blood in the water ...

In short: the Trumpslanation we have been offered for this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The sensible explanation is that this is not a ploy and that Trump is simply a half-assed gun-grabber (as accords with the history of his remarks on the issue going back decades). No chess required.

The idea isn't that it won't be enforced, the idea is that the courts will strike it down where they might not have struck down an act of Congress.

And so we come full circle ...


If they are going to strike it down because of its source (EO vs. act of Congress), then:

[... I]f, as you say, the courts would give greater deference to an act of Congress, then why should the Democrats feel at all inhibited or stymied by Trump's [judicially neutered] EO? Indeed, it seems that just the opposite should be the case. [...]

How can it possibly work to our advantage if the courts say, "This does not pass muster as an EO - but it might as an act of Congress ..."?

But if they are going to strike it down because of its substance, then:

If the courts are going to beat down Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws, then why wouldn't they beat down the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws? Or to state things the other way around, if the courts are at all likely to allow the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws, then why wouldn't they be at least as likely (if not more) to allow Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws?

If they WOULD beat down the Democrats' crap, then why does Trump need to do anything? But if they would NOT beat down the Democrats' crap, then why should anyone expect them to beat down Trump's?

IOW: Either Trump's crap is pointless and unnecessary at best (at worst, it is counter-productively dangerous if it does manage to pass judicial muster), or it is not a ploy ...

Trump issued the bump stock EO because he is a half-assed gun-grabber (and apart from wishful thinking, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that he was, is, or ever will be anything else).

But just for $#@!s and giggles, even if we grant that Trump was not motivated by half-assed gun grabbery, and that this disposition of his bump stock EO was his real objective all along, it was still a pointless exercise that accomplished nothing meaningful or significant. The Democrats and assorted other full-assed gun grabbers have not been in the least deterred or stymied by any of this. It was a foolish gamble, no matter how confident Trump might have been in the outcome - low risk for no gain is not a winning strategy.

IOW: Even assuming the best, he played with fire and he won (if you count lighting your own farts without getting burned a "win").

But one does not fend off sharks by chumming the water.

[phill4paul]

Oh. This again ...



Trump issued the bump stock EO because he is a half-assed gun-grabber (and apart from wishful thinking, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that he was, is, or ever will be anything else).

But just for $#@!s and giggles, even if we grant that Trump was not motivated by half-assed gun grabbery, and that this disposition of his bump stock EO was his real objective all along, it was still a pointless exercise that accomplished nothing meaningful or significant. The Democrats and assorted other full-assed gun grabbers have not been in the least deterred or stymied by any of this. It was a foolish gamble, no matter how confident Trump might have been in the outcome - low risk for no gain is not a winning strategy.

IOW: Even assuming the best, he played with fire and he won (if you count lighting your own farts without getting burned a "win").

But one does not fend off sharks by chumming the water.

So Trump banned "bump stocks." And as predicted the ban was shot down. How's things looking now?

[Occam's Banana]

So Trump banned "bump stocks." And as predicted the ban was shot down. How's things looking now?

The same as they looked before Trump banned them. So what was the point?

FTA:

In 2010, ATF had originally deemed bump stocks different from machine guns and unable to be subjected to the same regulation as machine guns.

And note that the court based it's decision on the legal definition of "machine gun."

Not on 2A grounds. Not on grounds of executive overreach. Just on grounds of a legalistic definition.

So all the gun grabbers (half-assed or full-assed) have to do to pass muster under this decision is change the legal definition of "machine gun."

How is that supposed to be any kind of significant or substantive win? Or even just a durable or lasting one?

ETA: So on second thought, I take it back. Given the court's reasoning as just described and how the grabbers might account for it (by merely changing the definition of "machine gun"), things might be looking worse now, and are in any case certainly not looking any better.

[phill4paul]

The same as they looked before Trump banned them. So what was the point?

FTA:


And note that the court based it's decision on the legal definition of "machine gun."

Not on 2A grounds. Not on grounds of executive overreach. Just on grounds of a legalistic definition.

So all the gun grabbers (half-assed or full-assed) have to do to pass muster under this decision is change the legal definition of "machine gun."

How is that supposed to be any kind of significant or substantive win? Or even just a durable or lasting one?

ETA: So on second thought, I take it back. Given the court's reasoning as just described and how the grabbers might account for it (by merely changing the definition of "machine gun"), things might be looking worse now, and are in any case certainly not looking any better.

I've never been POTUS. Never had to be Trump, an outsider, in particular. But, given the calls for bans at all levels at the time, it seemed a calculated way of ceding.

$#@!, we all seem to think it should be so easy, Ron would have been assassinated within 6 months. By Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore war he spoke against needs to continue.

[Occam's Banana]

I've never been POTUS. Never had to be Trump, an outsider, in particular. But, given the calls for bans at all levels at the time, it seemed a calculated way of ceding.

$#@!, we all seem to think it should be so easy, Ron would have been assassinated within 6 months. By Islamic fundamentalists. Therefore war he spoke against needs to continue.

As hard as fending off sharks might be, chumming the water can only ever make it harder. One should never cede one's rights to those who wish to take them, any more than one should ever apologize to the Woke for offending them (and for exactly the same reason).

And as a half-assed gun grabber, Trump was never going to be anything but a liability on gun rights issues, anyway.

The only question was, "How much of a liability?" We should consider ourselves fortunate that he wasn't even worse than he turned out to be.

There is no calculation or 3D chess to be found here. What we saw is what we got. It's that simple, and there's no reason (outside of fan fiction) to imagine otherwise.

[jmdrake]

Two other circuits have ruled in favor of the ATF on this - setting up a to the SCOTUS, or not ...

And as @Swordsmyth knows the SCOTUS is 100% trustworthy based on their rulings on the 2020 presidential election.

[Swordsmyth]

And as @Swordsmyth knows the SCOTUS is 100% trustworthy based on their rulings on the 2020 presidential election.

This case got standing, the republicans on the court can't hide from it.

[jmdrake]

This case got standing, the republicans on the court can't hide from it.

You mean like the courageous stand Roberts took on Obamacare? Or Roberts and Gorsuch took on abortion? Extending the Civil Rights Act to LGBT by reinterpreting the meaning of the word "sex"? Who are the "true republican" members of the SCOTUS that you're counting on? You have to have 5.

[Occam's Banana]

I told you it wouldn't hold up in court and Trump knew it wouldn't.

And yet. Maryland's bump stock ban survived appeal - and that's just okey-dokey as far as SCOTUS is concerned:

Supreme Court won't take Maryland bump stock ban case
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...e8d008fa6df3c3
Associated Press (02 May 2021)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is declining to take up a challenge to Maryland’s ban on bump stocks and other devices that make guns fire faster.

The high court on Monday turned away a challenge to the ban, which took effect in October 2018. A lower court had dismissed the challenge at an early stage and that decision had been upheld by an appeals court. As is typical, the court didn’t comment in declining to take the case.

Maryland’s ban preceded a nationwide ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks that was put in place by the Trump administration and took effect in 2019. The Supreme Court previously declined to stop the Trump administration from enforcing that ban. [...]

IOW: Even assuming the best, [Trump] played with fire and he won (if you count lighting your own farts without getting burned a "win").

[Swordsmyth]

And yet. Maryland's bump stock ban survived appeal - and that's just okey-dokey as far as SCOTUS is concerned:

Supreme Court won't take Maryland bump stock ban case
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...e8d008fa6df3c3
Associated Press (02 May 2021)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is declining to take up a challenge to Maryland’s ban on bump stocks and other devices that make guns fire faster.

The high court on Monday turned away a challenge to the ban, which took effect in October 2018. A lower court had dismissed the challenge at an early stage and that decision had been upheld by an appeals court. As is typical, the court didn’t comment in declining to take the case.

Maryland’s ban preceded a nationwide ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks that was put in place by the Trump administration and took effect in 2019. The Supreme Court previously declined to stop the Trump administration from enforcing that ban. [...]

Just because SCOTUS didn't take that particular case doesn't mean that the federal ban will stand or that the state bans will stand when the 6th Circuit case reaches SCOTUS.

[jmdrake]

And yet. Maryland's bump stock ban survived appeal - and that's just okey-dokey as far as SCOTUS is concerned:

Supreme Court won't take Maryland bump stock ban case
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-c...e8d008fa6df3c3
Associated Press (02 May 2021)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is declining to take up a challenge to Maryland’s ban on bump stocks and other devices that make guns fire faster.

The high court on Monday turned away a challenge to the ban, which took effect in October 2018. A lower court had dismissed the challenge at an early stage and that decision had been upheld by an appeals court. As is typical, the court didn’t comment in declining to take the case.

Maryland’s ban preceded a nationwide ban on the sale and possession of bump stocks that was put in place by the Trump administration and took effect in 2019. The Supreme Court previously declined to stop the Trump administration from enforcing that ban. [...]

Just because SCOTUS didn't take that particular case doesn't mean that the federal ban will stand or that the state bans will stand when the 6th Circuit case reaches SCOTUS.

The challenge to the Maryland ban was based on the 5th amendment "takings clause" as opposed to the 2nd amendment.

See: https://apnews.com/article/0c6f685dc...4dafe2f3a9039b)

and:

https://www.cato.org/blog/government...pensate-owners

It would be nice for the SCOTUS to go along with this, but I don't see that happening.

[Occam's Banana]

Just because SCOTUS didn't take that particular case doesn't mean that the federal ban will stand or that the state bans will stand when the 6th Circuit case reaches SCOTUS.

You are right. It doesn't mean that.

What it does mean (and this was my point in posting the story) is that putting faith in the courts to "do the right thing" is idiotically misguided.

It's a gamble at absolute best. Even worse, in the case of Trump's bump stock EO, it's a gamble that doesn't even have any payoff if you win - at best, you'll just get a return to the status quo ante.

Trump's executive-order bump-stock shenanigans were stupid and foolish, and even if we put the most charitable 3D-chess MAGA-fu spin on them (instead of just accepting the obvious fact that Trump was a half-assed gun grabber), they were all risk in return for no gain.

I'll say this again for the third time, because it so aptly summarizes even the best outcome that can be hoped for:

IOW: Even assuming the best, [Trump] played with fire and he won (if you count lighting your own farts without getting burned a "win").

[jmdrake]

You are right. It doesn't mean that.

What it does mean (and this was my point in posting the story) is that putting faith in the courts to "do the right thing" is idiotically misguided.

It's a gamble at absolute best. Even worse, in the case of Trump's bump stock EO, it's a gamble that doesn't even have any payoff if you win - at best, you'll just get a return to the status quo ante.

Trump's executive-order bump-stock shenanigans were stupid and foolish, and even if we put the most charitable 3D-chess MAGA-fu spin on them (instead of just accepting the obvious fact that Trump was a half-assed gun grabber), they were all risk in return for no gain.

I'll say this again for the third time, because it so aptly summarizes even the best outcome that can be hoped for:

Add to that Trump shilling for red flag laws and even for a renewed assault weapons ban.