Bump stock ban overturned by federa appeals court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a link to the opinion:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf

Key findings:

1) Chevron deference is never applicable in cases involving criminal statutes.

2) The term "single function of the trigger" refers to the mechanical action of the trigger, independent of what a shooter is doing.

3) This opinion is only controlling within the bounds of the 6th Circuit, and the Court explicitly notes that this opinion creates a circuit split with the 10th and DC Circuits.
 
I'm in a state that's under the 6th Circuit. Does this ruling mean I am now free to make myself a bump stock and attach it to my rifle?
 
Elkins45 said:
I'm in a state that's under the 6th Circuit. Does this ruling mean I am now free to make myself a bump stock and attach it to my rifle?
Click to expand...

That is somewhat unclear. From pg 36 of the opinion:

However, we do not decide the scope of the injunction, except to say that the scope may not exceed the bounds of the four states within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction and, of course, encompasses the parties themselves. Though we disagree with the ATF’s position, the ATF prevailed before the Tenth Circuit, as well as the D.C. Circuit Court, from which decision the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Click to expand...

As a layman, I can't say whether this covers everyone within the 6th Circuit, or simply the involved parties. Even then, I'm unsure of whether this means the plaintiffs can take their bumpstocks outside of the 6th Circuit.
 
That's the problem, everything is in legalese...so unless you are a lawyer or English major its unclear to the normal person. But if I recall the email from GOA said it has to go back to the lower court to decide.
 
Let's step back and analyze this. The courts setting aside the bump stock ban, in itself, might be a good thing. (Never mind that it's not a "done deal" until the Supreme Court resolves the disagreement between Circuits.) But if the ban is overturned definitively, we're back where we started. There will be enormous public pressure for Congress to act, something that the previous administration and the NRA tried to head off by going the regulatory route. And if Congress gets involved, it's likely to fold a legislative bump stock ban into a larger AWB, each item reinforcing the other. So we should be careful what we wish for.
 
jmorris said:
But now they were all destroyed and there are no manufacturers of them and I still didn’t get a stimulus check from the .gov...
Click to expand...
A fellow with a decent 3D printer doesn’t need a manufacturer, just an assurance he won’t be going to jail. Oh, and ammo...for a lot of people the idea of burning ammo that costs $1.29 a round to replace is probably the biggest deterrent. :)
 
Many states, including my normally-gun-friendly state, jumped on the "banned-wagon" with them as well. So, even if the Federal ban becomes undone somehow, make sure your state and/or locale hasn't prohibited them before possessing one.
 
Elkins45 said:
A fellow with a decent 3D printer doesn’t need a manufacturer, just an assurance he won’t be going to jail. Oh, and ammo...for a lot of people the idea of burning ammo that costs $1.29 a round to replace is probably the biggest deterrent. :)
Click to expand...
But it’s still one of the most enjoyable ways to spend $38.70 in 2 seconds... at least a time or two until the novelty of it wears off.

OR you could find a way to cram 950 rounds into a gigantic magazine and have a full minutes worth of ammo for $1225.50. Either way... if I ever do build another gun it will be a 9mm AR bumper and with cast bullets it would be more like $4 a mag and a bit slower since it’s blowback. It’s really starting to sound like fun, and I do have a spare lower...
 
Hunter 08 said:
That's the problem, everything is in legalese...so unless you are a lawyer or English major its unclear to the normal person. But if I recall the email from GOA said it has to go back to the lower court to decide.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. I'm an English major (Rutgers U) and most legal documents might as well be written in Mandarin. Or even Chinese!
:rofl::rofl:o_O:rofl::rofl:
 
I'm confused. Should I cut off my strong side belt loops or not?

I already did it on one pair of pants, but then I replaced that belt loop with a length of shoelace.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
BigBore44 said:
All of them? To quote Al Borland “I don’t think so Tim”.
Click to expand...

Well, they were illegal...that makes them go away right?

If that is not the truth, one would have to concede, no gun laws will keep them from being used by criminals.

At that point we are stuck at the flashing thoughts of those who can’t think, “we’ve got to do something.”
 
I can concede that no gun laws will keep criminals from using them. And I would also concede that, those that still own them, are by definition, criminals. However, others would insist that they are not in fact criminals. That they made a purchase legally and in good faith. And because when they purchased said accessory, they were not criminals, and have not used said accessory in a crime, they are not criminals ex post facto. That however is not up for me to decide.
 
If you hadn't heard, there was a bill introduced with Bipartisan support to hold the ATF accountable. TGC news had a video on it the other day.
 
vintovka said:
Are we down to the "who cares" level yet?
Click to expand...
I very much care. If the plain letter of a regulation can be “reinterpreted” by presidential directive then absolutely nothing is safe. It’s not a far leap to reinterpreting all semi-autos as being easily converted to machine guns and thus illegal to manufacture or posess.
 
Elkins45 said:
I very much care. If the plain letter of a regulation can be “reinterpreted” by presidential directive then absolutely nothing is safe. It’s not a far leap to reinterpreting all semi-autos as being easily converted to machine guns and thus illegal to manufacture or posess.
Click to expand...

What I meant is complete disregard for and aggressive non compliance to the rule of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dweis
  • Locked
SCOTUS leaves Bump Stock ban in place
Replies
1
Views
376
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
A
  • Locked
Machine gun ban upheld by federal appeals court
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
D
  • Locked
Appeals court overturns machine gun conviction
Replies
2
Views
468
Don Galt
D
A
  • Locked
Federal court overturns California gun rights victory on appeal
Replies
0
Views
858
Aim1
A
M
  • Locked
US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional
Replies
12
Views
2K
Arizona_Mike
A
Back
Top