Bump Stock Court Victory!
Announcement above, court decision at the link below.
https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Gun-Owners-of-America-v.-Garland-Bump-Stock-Victory.pdf
-
I just read elsewhere that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit just ruled that Bump Stocks are NOT machine guns in Gun Owners of America v. Garland.
Any truth to this?
0 -
Here it is:
Finding that “function” refers to the mechanical process, we conclude that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845(b).
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf
0 -
More from the decision-
Our holding that a bump stock does not fall within the statutory definition of a machine gun because a bump stock does not cause a firearm to fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger is sufficient to resolve this appeal. Consequently, we need not address or decide whether the ATF or Plaintiffs-Appellants have the better interpretation of “automatically” as used in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).9
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf
0 -
It is pages long and a bunch of legal language I don't understand
VI. Conclusion
Consistent with our precedent and mandated by separation-of-powers and fair-notice concerns, we hold that an administering agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled to Chevron deference. Consequently, 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. 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. Accordingly, we find that Plaintiffs- Appellants are likely to prevail on the merits and that that their motion for an injunction should have been granted.
Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
0 -
And here is what GOA has to say about the ruling.
https://www.gunowners.org/victory-court-rules-a-bump-stock-is-not-a-machine-gun/
0 -
Super. I never bought one.........but I guess that I can now. This judgement should also extend to binary triggers by definition.
Hell..........fellers............next thing you know they might make actual machine guns legal again......
0 -
mohawk600: 31516134079515/comments/31516146856475
Super. I never bought one.........but I guess that I can now. This judgement should also extend to binary triggers by definition.
Hell..........fellers............next thing you know they might make actual machine guns legal again......
Don't go holding your breath on that one.
0 -
That ruling could add another executive order to the long list of executive orders.
0 -
As I understand the ruling, the court decided (correctly) that because the Congress legally defined what constitutes a machinegun in 1934 and again in 1968, the ATF, even under President Trump's direction (insistence), had no authority to create a new category of machinegun-like devices.
While something of a victory, the Congress can amend the National Firearms Act to include any such devices which can be used to simulate full automatic fire. Several states have already banned trigger cranks, Hellfire-type trigger devices and bi-nary triggers. The more that Congress starts looking into this sort of thing, the worse it is for all of us, even for those who don't own these gizmos.
3 -
March 25 2021
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.
“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.”
0 -
Good news. Now let’s see where it goes from there.
0 -
So I get my 150.00 back for the one I beat into scrap
I will bet it gets overturned asap
We can't have people actually using the 2nd as it was written
0 -
Doesn't matter now. Congress is going to come down hard on anything with a trigger and Bumbling Biden will sign it.
0 -
That is a lot of reading,.
3 -
pickenup: 31516134079515/comments/31516147121051
That is a lot of reading,.
But it's good news!
0 -
Mr. Perfect: 31516134079515/comments/31516155868699
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11263011#Comment_11263011
But it's good news!
Yes, it is.
0 -
Yes it is. (echo) 🙂
0 -
This decision is correct, but is symptomatic of what is wrong with our judiciary.
What the decision says is that the executive cannot change the definition of words or concepts in laws that were enacted through a legislative process. It brings in separation of powers issues and spends a stupid amount of time citing a precedent set in something called the 'Chevron' defense which seems to tie executive decisions vs. legislative actions to criminal penalties.
Who gives a crap?
Trump's BATFE changed the correct decision of Obama's BATFE by changing the specific and precise definition of machinegun as found in the 1934 NFA. The court could have simply stated that the wording of the 1934 NFA is precise and it is not within the power of the executive to change the meaning of existing legislation.
Things must be slow over at the 6th Circuit, but, as noted, they made a good and very important decision that will be vital going forward as Geppetto directs the Puppet towards executive actions regarding firearm ownership.
3 -
good new but a couple years and countless millions of dollars too late for the company and people like me who had to destroy them
0 -
Oh yeah, me too. I destroyed thousands of em'!
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments