• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

BREAKING NEWS: Bump Stock Ban Struck Down

Dupe
Not a dupe. The link you provided was the filing of the appeal. The video from Guns n Gadgets is the ruling. Big difference.
 
This is really good to see. This is setting a precedent that the ATF can’t make their own laws, need to follow the laws that are in the books, and have to follow procedure if they want something changed.

This plus Bruen are definitely steps in the right direction. Hopefully, this doesn’t get appealed or if it does it’s shot down.
 
This is really good to see. This is setting a precedent that the ATF can’t make their own laws, need to follow the laws that are in the books, and have to follow procedure if they want something changed.

This plus Bruen are definitely steps in the right direction. Hopefully, this doesn’t get appealed or if it does it’s shot down.
Spot on. The various Federal departments - EPA, ATF, and others - have never had Constitutional permission to create law. For better or worse, that is still the domain of the Congress. This SCOTUS has recognized this and we can hope FJB doesn't get an opportunity to stack the Court with libs that hate the Constitution.
 
.


More Info

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a firearm accessory that enables a semi-automatic gun to shoot at an increased rate of fire.

In a 13-3 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), acting under "tremendous" public pressure, short-circuited the legislative process by approving a rule to define bump stocks as "machineguns," which are illegal to possess. The court said ATF did not have the authority from Congress to do so.

The bump stock ban, opposed by gun rights activists, was enacted by the Trump administration after the 2017 massacre in Las Vegas, where a gunman slaughtered 58 people at a music festival. The shooter used rifles equipped with bump stocks, allowing him to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes at a crowd of 22,000 people.

In 2018, President Donald Trump signed an executive order instructing the attorney general to regulate bump stocks, and ATF acted in accordance with the president's order. To do so, the agency reversed its decade-old position that bump stocks were not machineguns.

Ruling (PDF File) is linked in the video



 
Last edited:
I'm disappointed in the first paragraph of the majority opinion.

"The possession or transfer of a machinegun was eventually banned through the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. Today, possession of a machinegun is a federal crime, carrying a penalty of up to ten years’ incarceration."

That's not the law. At all.
 
From the dissent. Wow. Just wow.

In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don’t fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.
 
From the dissent. Wow. Just wow.
In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don’t fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.
The ATF essentially created new law by executive fiat. What that has to do with government proving a defendant's conduct is unambiguously illegal is not at all evident to me. Maybe someone with more time and legal experience than me can research and explain what this statement of dissent actually has to do with the case. It sure sounds to me like a typical illogical moonbat red-herring non-sequitur hysterical fear-mongering claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
 
The ATF essentially created new law by executive fiat. What that has to do with government proving a defendant's conduct is unambiguously illegal is not at all evident to me. Maybe someone with more time and legal experience than me can research and explain what this statement of dissent actually has to do with the case. It sure sounds to me like a typical illogical moonbat red-herring non-sequitur hysterical fear-mongering claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
The case exists because the government made a law and wanted to punish defendants for breaking it. His argument is basically that it's not fair to the government that the prosecution must prove the elements of the case.

My reply to the honorable Judge Higginson would be "yes, that's correct; thank you for describing the core principle of presumptive innocence."

It goes beyond "moonbattery" to good, old-fashioned authoritarianism. Any defendant who finds himself in front of Higginson should look to the ceiling: "I thought for sure there'd be stars..."
 
Dupe


Your dupe calling is a dupe of @Waher , and it's bad form to call a dupe in support of your own thread.
 
In January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Cargill, concluding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, impermissibly reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, which are forbidden under U.S. law.



View: https://youtu.be/CwSgnp_Fr9Y


Journalism is dead
 
Stop being a Skinflint, bro.
Sniff. I’m sorry…

Was texting a buddy (@BetterName123) how I wanted that $19,775 sniper rifle in the dealer classifieds tonight.

Not sure you’d understand… I heard you dabbled in 6.5. But all I’ve seen is some 7-10 yard targets. Yawn. Call me when you hit 50 yards.

I only need 19,774 more $1 layaway payments and it’s all mine!!!

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom