the ATF regulation saying that bump stocks are machine guns has just been ruled as illegal by 6th circuit Court.... Good news.
- Thread starter Thumper580
- Start date
I better get my scuba gear out and go search the lake where my boat sank.
ATF Stabilizer Brace Rule Means the Registration of Millions of Guns
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' (ATF's) stabilizer brace rule was finalized January 13, 2023.
www.breitbart.com “Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote the Fifth Circuit’s majority opinion, noting the ban came as myriad demands for a ban were made following the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooting:
The “Rule of Lenity” may win the day for all of these various cases.
I destroyed mine, can they send me a check for my losses? Ill also take it as store credit. I need another can.
Since when does a rulling on Laws keep law enforcement from breaking laws ?
When will there actually be repercussions for breaking or making laws up as they go ?
Its a win yes but also just another kick in the nuts to all who follow the law and not even a slap on the wrist to those who just make it up as they go with no legal authority to do so.
When will there actually be repercussions for breaking or making laws up as they go ?
Its a win yes but also just another kick in the nuts to all who follow the law and not even a slap on the wrist to those who just make it up as they go with no legal authority to do so.
I'm not defending Trump but post this to show the NRA is just as guilty for throwing gun owners under the bus. They gave Trump the green light and practically encouraged him to ban the bump stocks. Keep in mind that he's not a gun guy, he took his lead from the NRA.
BTW, the NRA stopped asking me for money after I told them, several times, that they were backstabbers.
BTW, the NRA stopped asking me for money after I told them, several times, that they were backstabbers.
They stopped calling me after I told the guy I was done funding Wayne's opulent lifestyle while the NRA does nothing for gun owners, and I moved my donations to GOA. He said I had fallen for the mainstream media's lies and was a fool and I told him he sucks at his job of getting donations and to go fuck himself. I haven't gotten a call or letter since.
Glad you finally figured out that the NRA sucks gorilla dicks. I stopped supporting them when they sold us out in the 90’s by supporting the Brady/Clinton assault weapons ban.
Still not buying one but for those that want them it is right and good you get the chance.
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,645
- 17,544
Just think of all the fun your missing though
Did you mean to type “Just think all that missing is fun though.”
If you stopped supporting the NRA because of Clinton you're a bit late to the party...
"The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.
And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law.
Decades later, in the legislative battle held in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and amid rising concerns about crime, the NRA opposed another national registry provision that would have applied to all firearms. Congress ultimately stripped it from the Gun Control Act of 1968."
They were cunts way before that.
"The NRA played a role in fledgling political efforts to formulate state and national gun policy in the 1920s and 1930s after Prohibition-era liquor trafficking stoked gang warfare. It backed measures like requiring a permit to carry a gun and even a gun purchase waiting period.
And the NRA helped shape the National Firearms Act of 1934, with two of its leaders testifying before Congress at length regarding this landmark legislation. They supported, if grudgingly, its main provisions, such as restricting gangster weapons, which included a national registry for machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and taxing them heavily. But they opposed handgun registration, which was stripped out of the nation’s first significant national gun law.
Decades later, in the legislative battle held in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and amid rising concerns about crime, the NRA opposed another national registry provision that would have applied to all firearms. Congress ultimately stripped it from the Gun Control Act of 1968."
They were cunts way before that.
I wasn't late, was not alive to pull my support prior to the AWB in the 90's (born 1976).
Yes....but...they were compromising. See you give, to get...its how civilized society...
Sorry I couldn't hold it in anymore.
They are colossal cunts, the lot of them. Theyve always been the controlled opposition. The men who have always run the NRA are in the same "clubs" that the politicians are in.
Butter Fudds, to the last man.
US Supreme Court Agrees to Take up Ban on Gun ‘Bump Stocks’
The high court will review a case challenging the legality of a controversial ATF rule.
www.theepochtimes.com Can you paste it here?US Supreme Court Agrees to Take up Ban on Gun ‘Bump Stocks’
The high court will review a case challenging the legality of a controversial ATF rule.
Here’s another article on it that isn’t behind a paywall.
Justices take up bump stock dispute - SCOTUSblog
Less than a week before the justices are scheduled to hear argument in a high-profile gun-rights case, the court added another dispute involving firearms to its docket for the 2023-24 term. In Garland v. Cargill, the justices will decide whether a “bump stock” – an attachment that transforms a semia
US Supreme Court Agrees to Take up Ban on Gun 'Bump Stocks'
The high court will review a case challenging the legality of a controversial ATF rule.
By Jack Phillips
11/3/2023
Updated:
11/3/2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a case involving the Trump-era ban on "bump stocks" that was initiated in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting.
The justices agreed to hear arguments early next year over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rule, which was implemented in 2017. The case pertains to whether the Department of Justice, which oversees the ATF, followed federal law in changing the regulation around bump stocks, which are able to increase the rate of fire in some semiautomatic weapons.
Federal appeals courts have come to different decisions on whether the ATF regulation defining a bump stock as a machine gun accords with federal law. In 2010, under the Obama administration, the agency found that a bump stock should not be classified as a machine gun and therefore should not be banned under federal law.
A 1986 federal law prohibits Americans from owning fully automatic weapons or parts that are used to convert other firearms into automatic weapons, although some exceptions were made to fully automatic firearms produced before May 1986. The ATF in 2018 said that bump stocks fall under the regulation of the 1986 law.
The ATF policy went into effect in 2019 after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an order to block it. In October 2022, the U.S. high court turned away two previous cases brought by gun rights advocates challenging the ban.
Opponents of the bump stock ban said that the legal definition of a machine gun has been distorted and argue that courts shouldn't defer to the ATF's interpretation of the rule. They have also argued that an individual needs to lean in and apply pressure to the stock of a gun fitted with a bump stock to get it to work, differing from how an automatic weapon, such as a machine gun, works. A bump stock uses the kickback from a semi-automatic weapon to increase the rate of fire.
The full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 13–3 in January that Congress would have to change federal law to ban bump stocks. “The definition of ‘machinegun’ as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the 5th Circuit. Meanwhile, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on the devices is unlawful.
"But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard," the 5th Circuit Court also wrote in its decision. "And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts."
But a panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington looked at the same language and came to a different conclusion. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that “under the best interpretation of the statute, a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger. As such, it is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.”
Lawyers for the DOJ, in court papers filed with the Supreme Court, argue that the federal rule did not "enlarge the scope of the statutory prohibition" on transferring newly made machineguns. “The rule instead merely served to inform the public of ATF’s considered view that bump stocks are ‘machineguns’ as Congress defined that term," the DOJ said.
Federal officials have estimated that as many as 520,000 bump stocks were sold nationwide before owners were ordered by the DOJ to surrender them under the ATF rule.
A number of gun-control groups including the Giffords Law Center Everytown for Gun Safety have also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the ATF bump stock ban.
The underlying lawsuit was filed by a firearms owner, Michael Cargill, who had to surrender two of his bump stocks to comply with the federal rule.
His attorneys have contended the bump stocks cannot be classified as machine guns, saying the DOJ is "overlooking the considerable human input required to fire more than one shot from a bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle."
“[T]he meaning of ‘machinegun’ in section 5845(b) is an issue on which national uniformity is needed; it is not tenable to have a regime in which the sale and possession of bump stocks are outlawed in some circuits while permitted in others,” Mr. Cargill’s attorneys wrote in court filings to the Supreme Court.
A decision on the case is expected to be rendered by the top court in the early summer.
The Supreme Court already is weighing a challenge to another federal law that seeks to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders, a case that stems from the landmark gun rights decision in 2022 in which the six-justice majority expanded gun rights outside the home.
In another gun-related case, the Supreme Court on Friday also agreed to review a lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that alleges a former New York firearms regulator of infringing on the pro-Second Amendment group's rights by trying to discourage insurers and banks from working with the organization.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt...9?ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_med=desktop_health
Jack Phillips
Author (Breaking News Reporter)
Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter with 15 years experience who started as a local New York City reporter. Having joined The Epoch Times' news team in 2009, Jack was born and raised near Modesto in California's Central Valley. Follow him on X: https://twitter.com/jackphillips5
Similar threads
