View Full Version : 5th Circuit Considers if the Trump Admin Was Legally Authorized To Ban Bump Stocks
https://reason.com/2022/08/08/the-5th-circuit-considers-whether-the-trump-administration-was-legally-authorized-to-ban-bump-stocks/
Regulators imposed the ban based on a highly implausible and counterintuitive reading of federal law.
https://reason.com/2022/08/08/the-5th-circuit-considers-whether-the-trump-administration-was-legally-authorized-to-ban-bump-stocks/
In a just world, a simple reading of the MG definition under federal law would preclude banning bump stocks under that premise. it is black and white that banning bumps stocks would require a new federal law.
But we don't live in a just world, and we never have.
In a just world, a simple reading of the MG definition under federal law would preclude banning bump stocks under that premise. it is black and white that banning bumps stocks would require a new federal law.
But we don't live in a just world, and we never have.
In a just world real full autos and everything else could be ordered directly from the manufacturer without any hassle and shipping to and from via usps would be done quickly and politely.
In a just world real full autos and everything else could be ordered directly from the manufacturer without any hassle and shipping to and from via usps would be done quickly and politely.
100%.
Dealers would qualify for a volume rate (stocking dealer price) and it would be like selling anything else. Nobody would be going to jail or their dogs getting shot because someone decided your inventory records don't meet their standards.
I'm sure the biden administration will undo this misjustice.
As per. NYSPRA. vr Bruen text plus historical context are required to uphold the ban.
https://youtu.be/jFN51ZMIg3E
https://youtu.be/Fmlaq7_VeuU
https://youtu.be/GK3YA7R5L9o
Diamondback
08-14-22, 20:24
I'm sure the biden administration will undo this misjustice.
Yeah, right after they all rediscover the concept of "honor" and expiate their dishonor the samurai way.
titsonritz
01-06-23, 19:17
The 5th reverses Bump stock ban. May have affect on ATF's upcoming rule release.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1673045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W94KYopeTSU
hotbiggun42
01-06-23, 22:23
Good trump should have never taken the opinion of the NRA on the issue of bump stocks.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-06-23, 22:43
https://youtu.be/aEWGHqr2f0s
Another view.
So bump stocks are legal in the 5th? (TX et al)?
5th Circuit strikes down bumpstock ban!
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611496031207800833
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611501867917271040
The one legal review I watched indicated it was struck down in such a way it's going to be unlikely to be challenged successfully.
Both tests they use on this kind of thing failed. (Chevron was one, the other had to do with airing on the side of the people If it's up in the air because of the penalties involved)
Chevron failed because the law clearly defines what is a machine gun or not and there was no ambiguity in this question. So there would not be a deference to the agency's opinion which would otherwise be allowed if it was ambiguous or not covered by law.
The other principle (which I can't recall the name of )was that if a particular decision was borderline or not clear cut that the court had to err in favor of the people and not the agency. This is especially true if there are criminal penalties involved, which there was in the case of the bump stock machine gun interpretation.
Good. Like many here I give zero shits about bump stocks but I was opposed to the blatant end run around the law.
I was seriously conflicted in an earlier bump stock case. I hated the plaintiff personally and wanted him to lose, but I disagree with the legality of the ban and wanted the case to win. This case I don't know the plaintiff so I can celebrate the win on legal principle.
The gov will likely appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS declined to hear the case previously, now I think they have to based on conflicting appellate court decisions.
I'm sure the biden administration will undo this misjustice.
Yeah, right after they all rediscover the concept of "honor" and expiate their dishonor the samurai way.
I suppose we’ll see. Its always interesting to see how party/individual loyalists avoid processing these bipolar conflicts.
Good. Like many here I give zero shits about bump stocks but I was opposed to the blatant end run around the law.
Same. I think they’re dumb, but should be legal. Just like most objects that I think are dumb.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-07-23, 15:35
It is interesting to think what the end game is when you look at what SHOULD be the test for gun laws.
In a nutshell;
1. We have a right to bearable arms
-As long as There isn’t a widespread law on the from cicra 1791 limiting that right
2. We have the right bear those arms
-As long as there isn’t a widespread prohibition agaisnt that circa 1791 (Court Houses, GOVT buildings seem to be examples)
3. Arms can be restricted if they are “Dangerous AND unusual”
-200,000 seems to be one example of being common and there for unusual (the stun gun case)
-Dangerous seems to be a weasel word- since all firearms are inherently ‘dangerous’
-The Key is the “AND” between them
Now that would seem to invalidate almost all modern gun-based laws.
-The left is trying to say dangerous OR unusual- but that isn’t the standard. That may have been the English standard, but SCOTUS has said AND, not OR.
-Scalia and his comments about Military machine guns is an issue- but I’m unclear if that is part of a decision or dicta that has no legal precedence? (Sidebar- Scalia was far from perfect, he was a bit too institutionalist with a deference to govt power, but that’s me.)
-Another attack is on ammunition and magazines, which are pretty clearly ‘arms’, but are another weasel attack angle that should be struck down.
-Same thing with ‘training’ and other person based restrictions.
Heller/McDonald/Bruen, and oddly maybe even Miller can (could) be used to shift the focus of murders from item (guns) to actions by people. That is a sea-state change. I worry that court will come up short and we end up with some mess in between- and like a little bit pregnant, it will be the birth of another run at our rights.
I think it is pretty clear to anyone that looks that the rights we had during COVID- and the expansion of the govt powers- was globally linked to citizens access to firearms. AND the current Canadian push to disarm its citizens is a direct affect of them realizing that it limits their ability to deny people their rights. (Although if the US govt wants to come and weld in place Armour on my house like they did in China, I might let them start ;).
We have a clear and rational system to understand our civil rights when it comes to self defense. The lefts taking that and actually trying to take away even more rights is the most dangerous threat to our republic in the last 200 years. If they take this clear language and rational system, and use it to disarm us…. Nothing means anything and anything means nothing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.