Jump to content

Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court rules ATF bumpstock ban unconstitutional


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

  • mauserme changed the title to Cargill v Garland: 5th Circuit strikes down federal bumpstock ban

I'm glad to see it toast on 'Administrative Rule' but it's not really dead so I won't celebrate too much, as I fully expect the states like Illinois and possibly a federal 'law' aimed at banning them coming sooner than later.  It needs to be killed as unconstitutional under Bruen!

 

On 1/6/2023 at 5:15 PM, steveTA84 said:

This just set the stage for the brace and receiver ATF stuff too lol!

 

Reset triggers as well!

 

But, right back to the same point, I would prefer to see 'full auto' bans to be ruled unconstitutional on the surface, they are clearly in common use and not dangerous and unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 7:14 PM, Flynn said:

I'm glad to see it toast on 'Administrative Rule' but it's not really dead so I won't celebrate too much, as I fully expect the states like Illinois and possibly a federal 'law' aimed at banning them coming sooner than later.  It needs to be killed as unconstitutional under Bruen!

 

 

Reset triggers as well!

 

But, right back to the same point, I would prefer to see 'full auto' bans to be ruled unconstitutional on the surface, they are clearly in common use and not dangerous and unusual.

 

And St. Louis local TV news has been runing stories about these Glock "Lightning Switches" that turn Glocks into fully automatic pistols.  The news stories reported that anybody caught with them would face a (mandatory?) 30 year federal sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 11:30 PM, JTHunter said:

 

And St. Louis local TV news has been runing stories about these Glock "Lightning Switches" that turn Glocks into fully automatic pistols.  The news stories reported that anybody caught with them would face a (mandatory?) 30 year federal sentence.

 

From what I gather people are caught with them quite regularly in Chicago and never Federally charged, so no Federal sentence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2023 at 11:37 PM, Flynn said:

 

From what I gather people are caught with them quite regularly in Chicago and never Federally charged, so no Federal sentence...

 

The police interviewed in the video stated that they had confiscated 3-4 in 2020, 7-8 in 2021, about 25 in 2022, and already this year, 3  of them.  The news story did NOT say anything about these people being charged with anything.

Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 12:30 AM, JTHunter said:

And St. Louis local TV news has been runing stories about these Glock "Lightning Switches" that turn Glocks into fully automatic pistols. The news stories reported that anybody caught with them would face a (mandatory?) 30 year federal sentence.

 

Full-auto switches are an NFA violation. The federal sentence for an NFA violation is 10 years maximum. There is no mandatory minimum.

 

On 1/7/2023 at 12:37 AM, Flynn said:

From what I gather people are caught with them quite regularly in Chicago and never Federally charged, so no Federal sentence...

 

Federal prosecutors are generally uninterested in local gang activities. It's interesting (but rare, I think) when they sometimes get involved in carjacking cases. In any case, local crime should be the jurisdiction of local prosecutors, but Chicago goblins are pretty much never charged with violating the state prohibition on full-auto weapons, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 1:03 AM, Euler said:

In any case, local crime should be the jurisdiction of local prosecutors

 

I would argue that there is a very likely chance those switches (especially the obvious factory manufactured ones aka the nice anodized finish, bootleg Glock Trademark screen or laser imprint ones, were involved in interstate commerce and/or illegally imported, thus the purview of the feds) but as you said they generally don't get involved, and it's likely the first charge the local prosecutors will drop in a plea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 12:59 AM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

This is big.

 

On Sunday Night, one of the Republican State Senators should point out that if the bump stock ban on an accessory can't survive court scrutiny, SB2226 doesn't stand a chance in heck and neither does the FOID.

 

 

It’s big, but not in a way that matters on Sunday. This was not a 2A case; the 5th CA only considered administrative rule making under the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 6:38 AM, Craigcr2 said:

It’s big, but not in a way that matters on Sunday. This was not a 2A case; the 5th CA only considered administrative rule making under the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Correct, it just tells the ATF that if they want to change definitions and rules (that result in criminals penalties) like they do that they have to go through Congress 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree this decision will have no bearing on Sunday but this is a 2A case. Since the 1968 GCA, there have been so many new accessories invented, created, or expanded upon other ideas that are not in the GCA. Obviously FRTs, braces, bump stocks, etc that the legality of these devices/accessories are determined by an administrative bureaucracy, not the 1968 GCA. The ever changing 4473 and when we can legally run a background check are all determined by unelected bureaucrats. The APAs reach expands to every industry in America and affects all industries including the 2A community. Brainstorming, I would say close to 70% of the rules I have to follow as an FFL Dealer are regulations, not laws...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-trump-era-bump-stock-ban

 

Quote

In a 13-3 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), acting under "tremendous" public pressure, shot-circuited the legislative process by approving a rule to define bump stocks as "machineguns," which are illegal to possess. The court said ATF did not have the authority from Congress to do so.

 

Quote

ATF said bump stocks "allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appears to be just like  administrative rule making!! 

 from ruling page 38.

 [W]e should feel deep discomfort at allowing an agency to define the very criminal rules it will enforce by implicit delegation. Such a delegation “turn the normal construction of criminal statutes upside down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with a doctrine of severity.” Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 736 F.3d 722, 730 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring). The delegation raises serious constitutional concerns by making ATF the expositor, executor, and interpreter of criminal laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets try this again (cant edit)

Appears to be just like  administrative rule making!! 

 from ruling page 38

  

[W]e should feel deep discomfort at allowing an agency to de- fine the very criminal rules it will enforce by implicit delega- tion. Such a delegation “turn the normal construction of criminal statutes upside down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with a doctrine of severity.” Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 736 F.3d 722, 730 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring). The delegation raises serious constitutional concerns by making ATF the expositor, executor, and interpreter of criminal laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

On April 6, the US filed a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court to reverse the 5th Circuit's ruling.

 

Docket

Petition for Certiorari said:

...

A "bump stock" is a device designed and intended to permit users to convert a semiautomatic rifle so that the rifle can be fired continuously with a single pull of the trigger, discharging potentially hundreds of bullets per minute. In 2018, after a mass shooting in Las Vegas carried out using bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published an interpretive rule concluding that bump stocks are machineguns as defined in Section 5845(b). In the decision below, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the ATF rule was unlawful because the statutory definition of "machinegun" does not encompass bump stocks. The question presented is as follows:

 

Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger."

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...