Cargill v Garland: 5th Circuit strikes down federal bumpstock ban

[DoYouFeelLucky]

As much as I don't like bump stocks, someone needs to consult a mechanical engineer.  I have a friend with several and they require the trigger to be pressed for every shot, they just facilitate the reset and trigger pull.  Maybe there is another kind of bump stock I am not familiar with?

[Flynn]

On 4/23/2023 at 9:23 PM, DoYouFeelLucky said:

As much as I don't like bump stocks, someone needs to consult a mechanical engineer.  I have a friend with several and they require the trigger to be pressed for every shot, they just facilitate the reset and trigger pull.  Maybe there is another kind of bump stock I am not familiar with?

 

Nope you are correct, but the ATF and government don't care about facts, they have an agenda and will lie through their teeth hoping to bluff a gun/mechanical dumb judge into believing their lies.  Personally I believe it should be a moot arguement as full auto should not be illegal or taxed to start with and I would love a white glove smack from the court bringing that it's light, especially since the governments Petition for Certiorari is still arguing interest bearing as a justification 'ban' full auto.

[Yeti]

The 6th Circuit seems to be calling out the government on flip flopping on bump stocks:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf

[Flynn]

On 4/25/2023 at 9:32 PM, Yeti said:

The 6th Circuit seems to be calling out the government on flip flopping on bump stocks:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf

 

Interesting ruling as they basically avoided the finer details of the bump stock itself and simply ruled that "the definition of a machinegun is ambiguous" and thus they must rule in favor of the people.

[Yeti]

On 4/25/2023 at 10:03 PM, Flynn said:

 

Interesting ruling as they basically avoided the finer details of the bump stock itself and simply ruled that "the definition of a machinegun is ambiguous" and thus they must rule in favor of the people.

Yes, and there was a strong point from one judge again stating that Congress can try (but hopefully unsuccessfully with Bruen long term!) to ban things clearly through unambiguous legislation but the ATF can’t continue to interpret vague things into felony charges.  Feels like a positive step forward that can be leveraged with pistol braces, SBR regulatory nonsense, etc.

[Euler]

On 4/25/2023 at 10:32 PM, Yeti said:

The 6th Circuit seems to be calling out the government on flip flopping on bump stocks:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf

 

For reference, that case is Hardin v ATF (docket) in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals from the Federal District Court of Western Kentucky (docket).

[Flynn]

On 4/25/2023 at 10:26 PM, Yeti said:

Yes, and there was a strong point from one judge again stating that Congress can try (but hopefully unsuccessfully with Bruen long term!) to ban things clearly through unambiguous legislation but the ATF can’t continue to interpret vague things into felony charges.  Feels like a positive step forward that can be leveraged with pistol braces, SBR regulatory nonsense, etc.

 

Yeah, as for presedent in this circuit, this ambiguity ruling should make a forced reset trigger lawsuit simple to win as well if it stands, it also opens up a new avenue for possibly quicker relief in other circuits, instead of arguing a 2nd violation right now, one might instead argue ambiguity for possibly quicker relief.