Jump to content

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


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-take-up-ban-on-gun-bump-stocks-5522628?src_src=News&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2023-11-03-1&est=Zx%2ByPGwYDudGTXBi5Is3EcZwPLVKt%2BehWXtK3caouPXDMSjReZXtvSuI0EM%3D

US Supreme Court Agrees to Take up Ban on Gun 'Bump Stocks'

 

The U.S. Supreme Court 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. . .

 

A decision on the case is expected to be rendered by the top court in the early summer. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear federal bumpstock ban case
On 11/3/2023 at 2:38 PM, John Q Public said:

Sure wish they would have picked up one that made this moot!

 

~Sigh~

 

This could be good or bad for us if they rule on 2nd grounds, but I suspect they will rule on administrative policy not 2nd grounds so what is going to probably happen is the ATF is going to get told once and for all they are not legislators and thus they can't author and enforce their rules as laws...  This would be pretty much in line with the way this court has been ruling on administrative authority in other cases...  And that could send ripples through the entire country as many states like Illinois also do the same thing by giving legislative power to administrative agencies, something the court is already frowning up...

 

But, who knows, maybe the SCOTUS will have had enough of these lower courts not figuring it out and use this case to put much of the NFA itself on the cutting block...  If they go that route it will be interesting as I don't believe there is anything in the Heller/Bruen test that will allow for the current ban and restrictions on full auto itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
On 2/28/2024 at 7:18 PM, Sweeper13 said:

How much more does our side have to explain to Judge Jackson about bump stocks. Plus when he tries to answer ,she doesn't want to hear the answer. These judges need to go and fire a bump stock and machine gun. Maybe they will get it then.

 

I think the SCOTUS will rule against the ATF on regulatory power, but not on any 2A issue.   ACB was asking why Congress didn't address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 6/14/2024 at 9:28 AM, EdDinIL said:

ABC wasn't very forthcoming with details.  Did the ruling just slap down ATF overreach (which is good enough at this point) or was there something more to it?

 

Yep, Alito hit that in his concurrence. 

 

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of 
bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the 
law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had 
stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation 
is clear, Congress can act." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 9:40 AM, davel501 said:

 

Yep, Alito hit that in his concurrence. 

 

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of 
bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the 
law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had 
stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation 
is clear, Congress can act." 

Good, it wasn't judicial activism on SCOTUS' part.  Thanks.  Now let's see what damage Congress tries to do with amending the NFA.  Ban bump stocks, oh, and let's reindex the tax stamp for inflation back to 1934 as well while we're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court rules federal bumpstock ban unconstitutional
  • Molly B. changed the title to Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court rules ATF bumpstock ban unconstitutional

The ruling uses the Congressionally-defined technical details of what constitutes a machine gun, yet Justice Sotomayor and groups like Everytown throw out the term machine gun to fit their own let's-scare-the-public-into-action words.

 

And then that one quote from Justice Sotomayor about rifles being commonly available.  *insert happy dance gif here*

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...