5th circuit court of appeals accepts appeal of bumpstock ban en banc (update ban struck down, post 26)

[Garys]

The court usually limits it's decisions to the issue at hand. It would be nice if it did unwind the NFA, but I don't expect that.

I couldn’t find any other threads about this case.
It was granted Cert by SCOTUS back in November and oral arguments will be on 2/28 at 1000hrs.

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

I can’t see SCOTUS finding the Bumpstock ban Constitutional under the Bruen Test, and I can’t see them finding the NFA Constitutional either, or at least the closing of the MG registry in 1986.
Maybe we will be able to get Machine gun stamps again.
Maybe this will be the end of the NFA
Odds are they will most likely ignore the NFA in this case unfortunately
But a guy can dream can’t he?

 

[Dennis in MA]

I couldn’t find any other threads about this case.
It was granted Cert by SCOTUS back in November and oral arguments will be on 2/28 at 1000hrs.

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

I can’t see SCOTUS finding the Bumpstock ban Constitutional under the Bruen Test, and I can’t see them finding the NFA Constitutional either, or at least the closing of the MG registry in 1986.
Maybe we will be able to get Machine gun stamps again.
Maybe this will be the end of the NFA
Odds are they will most likely ignore the NFA in this case unfortunately
But a guy can dream can’t he?

Imagine if you spent the last 5 years collecting all sorts of FA guns, spending $100-200K and then, with a stroke of a pen, they dismantle 1986 and your guns are worth 1/10th of what they are before, at best. LOL

In the Vickihz article, it said an AR is going for 40-60K. Damn. I haven't looked in a long long time. That's just crazy.

 

[hunt4riches]

I'd rather have supressors and SBR's, but let's get the low hanging fruit first.

in order of preference (for me) SBR's, then suppressors, then F/A. F/A is expensive and I don't even shoot the ones I own. F/A's are like having a very hot girlfriend who charges you $1,000 to bang her but it's not prostitution. It's cheaper to bang her less attractive semi-auto sister.

 

[JenkkiMike]

in order of preference (for me) SBR's, then suppressors, then F/A. F/A is expensive and I don't even shoot the ones I own. F/A's are like having a very hot girlfriend who charges you $1,000 to bang her but it's not prostitution. It's cheaper to bang her less attractive semi-auto sister.

I'd rather have FA. SBRs and suppressors are still obtainable for regular people with patience. FAs are completely unobtainable unless you want to spend a huge amount of money or go through the ridiculous process of becoming an 07FF/SOT.

 

[pdm]

I couldn’t find any other threads about this case.
It was granted Cert by SCOTUS back in November and oral arguments will be on 2/28 at 1000hrs.

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

I can’t see SCOTUS finding the Bumpstock ban Constitutional under the Bruen Test, and I can’t see them finding the NFA Constitutional either, or at least the closing of the MG registry in 1986.
Maybe we will be able to get Machine gun stamps again.
Maybe this will be the end of the NFA
Odds are they will most likely ignore the NFA in this case unfortunately
But a guy can dream can’t he?

They won't get to it until the issue comes up before them. That's just how conservative courts work. Liberal courts, on the other hand, invent emanations from penumbras to get their desired results.

 

[hunt4riches]

I'd rather have FA. SBRs and suppressors are still obtainable for regular people with patience. FAs are completely unobtainable unless you want to spend a huge amount of money or go through the ridiculous process of becoming an 07FF/SOT.

It would still be nice, I'll agree. I hate the counterargument about how the gangs will use them. The gangs have access now, and the semi autos they get are easily - and often - converted.

 

[PappyM3]

From the Miller ruling logic, none of the items in the NFA should be there anymore.

They ruled in Miller that SBSes, SBRs, silencers, and machine guns could be regulated and taxed because they were inappropriate for military use with a militia.

First, that should never have been acceptable with machine guns because they’ve always been appropriate for military use with a militia. But we know how Miller was a crap ruling that should have been mooted when he died rather than being rammed through.

Second, the Army has used carbines, that would meet the barrel length definition of an SBR, as their standard issue rifle for 18 years. And SBSes and silencers are also issued fairly regularly now in the military.

All that said, they’re not going to touch the NFA on this one, sadly.

 

[PappyM3]

Imagine if you spent the last 5 years collecting all sorts of FA guns, spending $100-200K and then, with a stroke of a pen, they dismantle 1986 and your guns are worth 1/10th of what they are before, at best. LOL

In the Vickihz article, it said an AR is going for 40-60K. Damn. I haven't looked in a long long time. That's just crazy.

I’d feel slightly bad for the people who genuinely just wanted to have fun and enjoy shooting them. But the people who intentionally just take them off the market as an investment vehicle? Screw ‘em.

 

[Garys]

Miller is a good example of a bad case resulting in a bad decision.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

From the Miller ruling logic, none of the items in the NFA should be there anymore.

They ruled in Miller that SBSes, SBRs, silencers, and machine guns could be regulated and taxed because they were inappropriate for military use with a militia.

First, that should never have been acceptable with machine guns because they’ve always been appropriate for military use with a militia. But we know how Miller was a crap ruling that should have been mooted when he died rather than being rammed through.

Second, the Army has used carbines, that would meet the barrel length definition of an SBR, as their standard issue rifle for 18 years. And SBSes and silencers are also issued fairly regularly now in the military.

All that said, they’re not going to touch the NFA on this one, sadly.

MILLER was a travesty, Cherry picked to find the NFA Constitutional.
I agree its much to far of a reach to hope they will right that wrong.

 

[JJC]

Suppressors all day. It's amazing how much your hearing matters. Every sport takes a toll but it amazes me that this is the only safety equipment that gets restricted.

 

[GL2020]

Suppressors all day. It's amazing how much your hearing matters. Every sport takes a toll but it amazes me that this is the only safety equipment that gets restricted.

Too many movies with hitman taking someone out silently with a pew-pew
Politicians think they’re the tools of thugs and gangs.

Yes because laws are what is keeping them away from thugs and gangs now :-|

 

[T-Unit]

From the Miller ruling logic, none of the items in the NFA should be there anymore.

They ruled in Miller that SBSes, SBRs, silencers, and machine guns could be regulated and taxed because they were inappropriate for military use with a militia.

First, that should never have been acceptable with machine guns because they’ve always been appropriate for military use with a militia. But we know how Miller was a crap ruling that should have been mooted when he died rather than being rammed through.

Second, the Army has used carbines, that would meet the barrel length definition of an SBR, as their standard issue rifle for 18 years. And SBSes and silencers are also issued fairly regularly now in the military.

All that said, they’re not going to touch the NFA on this one, sadly.

Before we see any movement on the NFA what will happen is a suit to remove the state restrictions on them. It will be like the Bruen case with may issue states, the de facto bans of NFA items is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

 

[MaverickNH]

What Questions Should We Expect During Oral Arguments in Garland v. Cargill? | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

A catalog of potential questions from SCOTUS in the Garland vs Cargill bump-stock case set for oral arguments 28Feb24. I corresponded with the author, Dru Stevenson, on other matters in the past and find him balanced legally, if not left-of-center personally. He raises decent questions, even if his offered answers reflect some bias.

”Oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, which is a challenge to the ATF’s six-year-old bump stock rule, are set for February 28. Based on the issues presented in the case and the current circuit split, the following are questions I expect the justices might ask during oral arguments. I outline the issues presented in the case in a separate post here. I group the questions by the side to which they would be directed if asked in a challenging way; of course, sometimes justices ask a “friendly” or softball question, which would be a more challenging question if posed to the opposing party.

I expect few or no questions about the Second Amendment or historical gun laws from the Founding era – the questions on appeal focus on the statutory definition of “machinegun” and the ATF’s rule interpreting the statutory verbiage. In a nutshell, I expect most of the questions to focus on the ATF’s rulemaking authority, its interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (which has changed over time), what Congress could authorize ATF or other agencies to do going forward, and if/how Chevron deference should be applied in cases like this.”[/i}

 

[Garys]

I wonder if SCOTUS ends up using Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to overturn Chevron what effect there may be on this case?

I expect few or no questions about the Second Amendment or historical gun laws from the Founding era – the questions on appeal focus on the statutory definition of “machinegun” and the ATF’s rule interpreting the statutory verbiage. In a nutshell, I expect most of the questions to focus on the ATF’s rulemaking authority, its interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (which has changed over time), what Congress could authorize ATF or other agencies to do going forward, and if/how Chevron deference should be applied in cases like this.”[/i}