Cargill v Garland Bump stock ban

[mab22]

Looks like Garland didn’t appeal, so it wouldn’t go to the SCOTUS, so Bump stocks are legal in 3 states?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bump-stocks-return-store-shelves-these-tree-states

Quote

The ATF can still enforce the bump stock ban outside Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

"Essentially, the ATF is prevented from enforcing the rule for the time being in these three states," South Texas College of Law professor Dru Stevenson said. 

As to why the DOJ didn't ask the Supreme Court to consider the issue... Keeping the case in the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction would prevent the Supreme Court from agreeing with Cargill and overturning the ban nationwide. G

[Euler]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:40 PM, mab22 said:

Looks like Garland didn’t appeal, so it wouldn’t go to the SCOTUS, so Bump stocks are legal in 3 states?

...

 

For now, they are "legal" in LA, MS, and TX.

 

I put "legal" in quotes, because this case isn't about law. It's about an ATF regulation.

 

Time is on the ATF's side by not taking it to the US Supreme Court.

1. ATF can make every circuit litigate the regulation.
2. ATF can wait for a case that's more favorable (from its perspective) to push up to the Supreme Court. In fact, a case that the ATF wins at the circuit level (thus requiring the plaintiffs to appeal) might be such a case. Thus the process itself could choose the best case for the ATF.
3. Since the ruling was about regulatory procedures, not a protected civil liberty, Congress can still pass a law.

The Supreme Court is going to have to take it up eventually, because there can't be federal enforcement one way in 47 states and another way in 3 states (or whatever the proportion is by that point). Even without cases in other circuits, there is still effectively a circuit split.

[mab22]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:45 PM, Euler said:

 

For now, they are "legal" in LA, MS, and TX.

 

I put "legal" in quotes, because this case isn't about law. It's about an ATF regulation.

 

Time is on the ATF's side by not taking it to the US Supreme Court.

1. ATF can make every circuit litigate the regulation.
2. ATF can wait for a case that's more favorable (from its perspective) to push up to the Supreme Court. In fact, a case that the ATF wins at the circuit level (thus requiring the plaintiffs to appeal) might be such a case. Thus the process itself could choose the best case for the ATF.
3. Since the ruling was about regulatory procedures, not a protected civil liberty, Congress can still pass a law.

The Supreme Court is going to have to take it up eventually, because there can't be federal enforcement one way in 47 states and another way in 3 states (or whatever the proportion is by that point). Even without cases in other circuits, there is still effectively a circuit split.

Would “legal” be possession and or purchase?
Could someone legally “purchase” in one of those states, but not be able to posses in their own if not part of the 3?

 

[Euler]

On 3/6/2023 at 12:06 AM, mab22 said:

Would “legal” be possession and or purchase?
Could someone legally “purchase” in one of those states, but not be able to posses in their own if not part of the 3?

 

People and businesses in those states can manufacture, buy, sell, possess, and use.

[steveTA84]

Oh boy here we go!!!!!!!!!! I’m starting to think that the Biden admin secretly loves the 2A LOL