• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • Site updates coming next Wednesday at 8am CT!

    The site will be down for routine maintenance on Wednesday 6/5 starting at 8am CT. If you have any questions, please PM alexj-12!

Sixth Circuit Rules that Dumpy Trumpy Overstepped his abilities in unilaterally banning bump stocks

TheHorta said:
Ironically, the SINGLE issue both DEMS and the Media didn't go after him for.
Click to expand...
Of course they don't because they are wretched people and we don't expect better. His action was the most blatantly unconstitutional move against guns since the Clinton AWB, and arguably worse, since it not only violated the 2nd, but was way outside what agencies have been permitted to do. Of course they love that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHorta
Mike_Honcho said:
The timing is interesting as Biden continues to mouth Executive Order.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. If this stands, it perhaps begins the road to support for the below view as precedence.

“it is not the role of the executive – particularly the unelected administrative state – to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong,” they wrote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wh20crazy, RGStory and Evlshnngns
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
Link to the actual opinion: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf

Question Presented:
- "The question before us is whether a bump stock may be properly classified as a machine gun as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).1 But this case rests as much on who determines the statute’s meaning as it does on what the statute means."

Holding:

- "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."

My lizard brain comments:

- GOA did a great job with their brief really focusing on the simple yet powerful point that deference, much less Chevron deference, should not be applied in this case due to the statute in question involves a criminal penalty.

- Still, I would argue that this decision is inconsistent with other 6th Circuit decisions where they decided Chevron deference is appropriate when interpreting statutes with dual criminal and civil penalties.

- Personally, I would still classify this as a weasel opinion in that the Court did not go as far as to say the strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review since the statute being interpreted involved a right enumerated in the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
You are asking entirely too much of a circuit court. Basically to go outside of their normal function in the legal system. You may be right if SCOTUS produced the same opinion, but there is no precedent for them to invoke strict scrutiny, so it really isn't their place. I mean they could, but with the controversy over strict scrutiny of the 2nd clearly being a live SCOTUS issue, it would be really weird of the sixth usurped that power. This creates a conflict with the tenth where that issue can be properly addressed.

ETA: I agree with you that the 2nd absolutely deserves strict scrutiny. I am not arguing that.
 
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
It's certainly the role of an appellate court to decide what level of judicial review is appropriate when interpreting a statute.

The Appellate Court reviews the decision of the trial court, in this case, a federal district court.
Click to expand...
It is generally not done when the issue is a live ball at SCOTUS. You can certainly all you want, but you would still be wrong.
 
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
ever heard of a circuit split?
Click to expand...
Yes, and there is one over whether the action was permissible, but that is not the issue at hand. The bottom line is that SCOTUS is going to be the court to decide if the 2nd gets strict scrutiny or not, and lower courts are not going to step in and do it. They are going to use the test that they believe SCOTUS told them to use in Heller. If SCOTUS had given no test, then maybe you would see a circuit court choose one, but given that they were given one, albeit a kind of vague test that many circuits have mangled, it just isn't going to happen. Note I am not saying you are wrong about whether it should get that level of scrutiny, just that it is going to follow a certain path to get there, and a decision like this is not weasel words, but the best possible outcome given the issue as it does set up a circuit split.
 
I'm just 18 pages into this opinion and it's impressive. I see why it took so long.
 
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
The Heller decision mainly stands for the proposition that the 2A is an individual right and not merely a collective right given the militia language in the 2A. In my opinion, the decision in Heller did not reach whether the 2A is a fundamental right or not.
Click to expand...
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct. Nevertheless, it gave a test of text, tradition and history for ruling on 2nd amendment cases. I think that is a stupid test, but in giving it, they declined to give a test of strict scrutiny, so at this point, for 2nd amendment questions, circuit courts are bound by that precedent.
 
Palmetto-Pride said:
Can you give us the "Cliff Notes"
Click to expand...

Just the first 18 pages, TLDR version:
Chevron does not apply to criminal statutes. Machinegun is only defined in criminal statutes. Therefore, we [federal courts] are the experts.

More detail:
"B. Supreme Court Precedent
...Thus, the Court was clear, unequivocal, and absolute in saying that it has
“never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference.”"

"Chevron does not grant the ATF deference on the interpretation of criminal statute, machine gun is defined in criminal statutes, and thus the ATF does not enjoy deference. Even if it did, the statute would have to be ambiguous and it's not." (emphasis mine)

"C. Circuit Court Precedent

"Our review of Sixth Circuit precedent reveals that we generally do not apply Chevron deference to an administering agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute, as we have explained: The special deference required by Chevron is based on the expertise of an
administrative agency ... criminal law and the interpretation of criminal statutes is the bread and
butter of the work of federal courts."

"However, as discussed above, we have no comparable precedent and, in fact, our precedent suggests the opposite."... "With this decision we are joining one side of a circuit split, not creating a circuit split."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer
Why would you guys debate court decisions or the legality of any thing that comes from a corrupt criminal system. The courts mean nothing. This system is against you and for “them”. I sure hope you guys understand this by now. If not then I have no words for you.
 
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
That’s why, in my lizard brain opinion, that any decision not based on the rationale that the 2A is a fundamental right and any statutes that touch on the 2A should be interpreted with strict scrutiny is a victory in name only.

Appellate courts are signaling to state legislatures plain as day that complete bans are disfavored but showing a willingness to not strike down extreme restrictions on the 2A given that the courts interpret the restrictions as furthering the compelling governmental interest of protecting public safety if intermediate scrutiny is applied.

ETA:

I very much see this as an all or nothing, strict scrutiny or nothing issue at this point unless we are okay with bullet buttons and 5 round mags.
Click to expand...
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
Only if the case being decided would be sufficiently analogous to Heller. Whether an accessory that doesn’t affect the function of the trigger is capable of re-classifying a semi auto rifle into a machine gun is an entirely different question than whether banning the possession of effectively usable handguns in the home violates the 2A or not.
Click to expand...
You are more than welcome to see it that way, but your view has no relation to the way the judicial system works. The test laid out in Heller currently applies to all 2A law, not just cases sufficiently similar. It may be applied badly, but if you read 2A decisions post Heller, it is referenced consistently.

This case is more directly about Auer/Chevron than 2A at this point. Right now your argument is akin to having played a soccer game and won, but being upset that nobody is saying you won a basketball game too.
 
wade2big said:
Why would you guys debate court decisions or the legality of any thing that comes from a corrupt criminal system. The courts mean nothing. This system is against you and for “them”. I sure hope you guys understand this by now. If not then I have no words for you.
Click to expand...

Because some people recognize that freedom is not something you are just handed and enjoy, but rather something that requires continual work to retain.

And this, my friend, was a masterpiece of work from what I have observed so far.

I'm not sure what your perception of this discussion is, so I will share mine: What the 6th circuit did here is crafted heavy artillery, a tank if you will, and sent it off to fight. That's how these things work. These aren't just words without meaning or purpose, it's an argument sent out to be accepted or challenged.

It was not easy to craft, I'm sure, if you read it you will see clearly there are dozens of citations throughout just the first few pages. These citations require research, study, and understanding. This thing is more an aircraft carrier than a tank, there are many arguments in here that have implications far beyond bump stocks.


What I hear from you sounds like you gave up and so should everyone else. I can think of no more certain way to attain defeat.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Charger442, aviumvenator, BufordTJustice and 2 others
Gommer said:
Because some people recognize that freedom is not something you are just handed and enjoy, but rather something that requires continual work to retain.

And this, my friend, was a masterpiece of work from what I have observed so far.

I'm not sure what your perception of this discussion is, so I will share mine: What the 6th circuit did here is crafted heavy artillery, a tank if you will, and sent it off to fight. That's how these things work. These aren't just words without meaning or purpose, it's an argument sent out to be accepted or challenged.

It was not easy to craft, I'm sure, if you read it you will see clearly there are dozens of citations throughout just the first few pages. These citations require research, study, and understanding. This thing is more an aircraft carrier than a tank, there are many arguments in here that have implications far beyond bump stocks.


What I hear from you sounds like you gave up and so should everyone else. I can think of no more certain way to attain defeat.
Click to expand...
I didn’t give up. Just the opposite. I understand what is actually happening and moved on.

Giving this system credibility is a mistake. It will eat you up and spit you out. Its a joke. Our govt is a joke. Our courts are joke. Law and order is gone. You watched a made up pandemic used to destroy people’s lives. You watched police arrest business owners for trying to make a living. You watched a piece of cloth on a persons face determine if they have a job or lose everything they own. You watched an election get stolen before your very own eyes. You watched all 50 states say its all good man. You watched congress pass multiple multi trillion dollar transfer of wealth bills.

You are still believing the illusion. Leave your old thinking behind and move on as well. Don’t play their games any longer as they make the rules, not you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The D, Dunraven and Pbgt
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
I would agree that this holding touches more on what is the appropriate level of review when interpreting a statute which only has a criminal and not civil penalty or at least what the court sees as a criminal penalty only.

As noted in the option, there is currently a circuit split on this issue.

Where I would disagree is that the Heller opinion should be interpreted broadly or that it decided what level of review is appropriate in all cases that touch on the 2A. I think it was ambiguous on that issue.

If your position that this sort of modified intermediate scrutiny set out in Heller for basically anything other than a gun in your own home is the appropriate level of review when interpreting statutes that touch on the 2A and their constitutionality, then be prepared for extreme restrictions being upheld as the court will hold that as long as the restriction serves the compelling governmental interest of protecting the public safety and is not a complete ban or a complete removal of 2A rights then the statute will not be struck down
Click to expand...
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
Choad, you're just wrong if you think that the Heller decision addressed which level of review should be applied to all future 2A cases.
Click to expand...
thestoicmarcusaurelius said:
I would also say this is a weasel opinion in that it is a statutory interpretation case involving machine gun statutes that did not mention the second amendment or the right to keep and bear arms once in the entire opinion.
Click to expand...

My opinion of what should be the level of scrutiny applied to all 2A cases doesn't matter, but I will answer it at the end. What matters is that having been given a level of scrutiny to follow by the Supreme Court, circuit courts are not really free to decide to change that. Ckrcuit courts are highly bound by precedent. They can't just go change it because they don't like it. Only the Supreme Court is in that position. That is just who the courts work, and all the name calling and obfuscating you want to do doesn't change that fact. What you are implying, I guess, is that the sixth circuit should have overturned the NFA, a law that has stood for close to 90 years and undergirds tons of other law, after being told by SCOTUS to use history, text and tradition to evaluate gun laws. While I would appreciate the outcome, it would be insanity from the point of view of how our court system works.

My opinion is that all enumerated rights should have the strictest of scrutiny, though I don't like the concept of scrutiny levels as I think they necessarily imply that somethings and some groups should have less than the strictest scrutiny as far as their rights go.
 
Mike_Honcho said:
But....muh shoelaces....the ATF says they have purview.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I don't believe the ATF really wanted in on this. This was Trump all the way down. He told the ATF to find a way, and they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned
I wonder how this will go down because it's a bit ironic.

Demonrats hate the 2A and love anything that infringes on it.

Demonrats also have a reflex hatred of Orange Man Bad with a religious passion.

So court strikes down yet another one of Orange Man Bad's orders as unconstitutional and abusing his authority....

So now that Demonrats are in charge, do they like say... we must preserve Orange Man Bad's legacy of infringing on the 2A more than our Messiah did?
 
I have a level of scrutiny I apply to dumb arguments and lack of knowledge whose core is the attempt to win by changing my user name.
 
You two are arguing over make believe anyhow. It’s comical in some ways and sad in others. You might as well be arguing over WWE wrestling. Both the WWE and our courts are equally as credible.
 
wade2big said:
You two are arguing over make believe anyhow. It’s comical in some ways and sad in others. You might as well be arguing over WWE wrestling.
Click to expand...
You remind me of a high school student who just learned what nihilism means. Crank up the Jane's Addiction and pass the bong.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Baron23
Choid said:
You remind me of a high school student who just learned what nihilism means. Crank up the Jane's Addiction and pass the bong.
Click to expand...
You can claim to be more sophisticated and intelligent than me by pretending that this shitshow of a government and judicial system we have still has any credibility or merit if you choose. I will stay out of you guy’s discussion of the reality show of our kangaroo courts. I just had to pick on you a bit. I’m done.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DarnYankeeUSMC
wade2big said:
You can claim to be more sophisticated and intelligent than me by pretending that this shitshow of a government and judicial system we have still has any credibility or merit if you choose. I will stay out of you guy’s discussion of the reality show of our kangaroo courts. I just had to pick on you a bit. I’m done.
Click to expand...
Does that mean no bong?
 
Choid said:
No, but I've spent a lot of time paying lawyers if that helps.
Click to expand...

As citizens, we all should consider ourselves in the "law bidness".

On a side note, I'd be happy to pass along my bong, but you may be disappointed. It only has ever been used for tobacco.
 
RGStory said:
As citizens, we all should consider ourselves in the "law bidness".

On a side note, I'd be happy to pass along my bong, but you may be disappointed. It only has ever been used for tobacco.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RGStory
The constitution is basically simple and easy enough for anyone to understand.
Enter the ivy league fucksticks and their communist friends to distort the document by redefining words.
They wrap themselves in a black robe and mandate that everyone respect them and their new twist.
Fuck them!!!
RGStory said:
As citizens, we all should consider ourselves in the "law bidness".

On a side note, I'd be happy to pass along my bong, but you may be disappointed. It only has ever been used for tobacco.
Click to expand...
 
DarnYankeeUSMC said:
The constitution is basically simple and easy enough for anyone to understand.
Enter the ivy league fucksticks and their communist friends to distort the document by redefining words.
They wrap themselves in a black robe and mandate that everyone respect them and their new twist.
Fuck them!!!
Click to expand...
LOL.
They go to a special place, read from codices and memorize special words with magic meanings that the school will claim no one else can teach them. They get dressed up in wizard gowns and pass out scrolls on completion and attempt to claim a special elevated place in society. What's the difference between law school and Hogwarts?

Wizards.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longshot231
This will now be taken to the Supreme Court and based on recent history, they will F us yet again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wh20crazy
They have lost the faith and confidence of millions.
They continue to write words on paper.

Like that really has meaning anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thumper580
ATF bump stock regulation just ruled illegal
Replies
24
Views
2K
JR_77
JR_77
T
300 PRC
Replies
145
Views
28K
rustyinbend
rustyinbend
Top Bottom
Back