bumpstock ban process

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to stray off the topic of bump stocks, but the ATF attempt to ban M855 had sound legal reasoning behind it based strictly on the statute. The statute bans any handgun ammunition with a steel core (mild or hardened is is not specified in the law), and the slew of AR pistols now on the market made the 5.56x45 cartridge a pistol cartridge.

18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(17)(B)

(B)The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.​

The only exception to the above is a finding by the Attorney General that the projectile in question is primarily intended to be used for sporting or industrial purposes. M855 currently operates under just such a sporting purposes exemption, but any future Attorney General could reverse that decision.

M855 projectiles do not fit under the definition of armor piercing because they do not have a core constructed ENTIRELY of iron or steel. There is a lead slug behind the steel penetrator, which excludes it from being AP and makes it handgun legal. Had ATF not backed away and used the 'sporting purposes' excuse, I would like to know what their "sound legal reasoning" would have been since only Congress and the president's signature can change a statute. Same thing with bump stocks which do not fit the statutory definition of a machinegun.
 
Since the Vegas shooting, bump stocks, which were basically unheard of outside of the shooting world, suddenly became a big deal with the politicians

Which is very complicated. The only evidence for bumpstocks at LV is pure hearsay. All of the links go back to each other, the media references itself on the topic. A number of reports conflate potential arms charges with arms present (further obfuscated with the whole "illegal ammunition manufacturing" side show).

We have zilch from LV Metro or any of the alphabet agencies on what was on scene, what was recovered, what was tested for being fired. And LVM is generally a good agency, not given to pumping out bilgewater.

So, all linkage of bumpstocks to LV is all political, not factual--not until facts are actually ever produced.
 
Which is very complicated. The only evidence for bumpstocks at LV is pure hearsay. All of the links go back to each other, the media references itself on the topic. A number of reports conflate potential arms charges with arms present (further obfuscated with the whole "illegal ammunition manufacturing" side show).

We have zilch from LV Metro or any of the alphabet agencies on what was on scene, what was recovered, what was tested for being fired. And LVM is generally a good agency, not given to pumping out bilgewater.

So, all linkage of bumpstocks to LV is all political, not factual--not until facts are actually ever produced.

Having heard the audio of the gunfire that accompanied the Mandalay Bay video, I think it's self-evident that bumpstocks were used. I've not heard ANY evidence of full auto weapons. My brother-in-law is a ex Pathfinder Ranger, U. S. Army, who has been in about two dozen operations and has been up against full auto AK-47 armed enemy combatants. He's heard those recordings and said it sounded like AKs to him.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. The Mandalay incident was handled in a ham handed way that has obfuscated a lot of what hapoened, that's true .... but I also do believe in Occam's Razor, and that suggests the simplest explanation is the deceased shooter used the weapons at hand and that the bumpstock equipped weapons played a big role.
 
This official act of banning bump-fire stocks is wrong in a number of ways and is at the heart unconstitutional.
I am hopeful that this unjust action will be challenged and struck down.

For one, the bump-fire stock has, for all intents and purposes, been classified the same as a machine gun. However, the immanent piece of plastic is incapable of firing ammunition. Furthermore, it is incapable of firing more than one round of ammunition with one pull of the trigger.

The ruling is quoted as saying;

The rule concludes that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.

In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology. However for gun hating zealots it is but a small leap to rationalize why it should be so.

Furthermore, with this ruling the “people” have now lost the protection of the 5th amendment. If individuals are required to either destroy or surrender property to the “government” without due process and compensation, then the 5th amendment has just been abrogated. There has been no due process of law, just an edict issued by big brother.

The 5th amendment in part says;

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

With this precedent now made law (not by congress), what’s to stop the next infringement on yet another one of the bill of rights. We as a county are headed down a slippery slope and big brother is at the top and pushing hard.

And here in Nevada, with this ruling, Sissylack and his hordes will be emboldened and will decimate Nevada gun owners rights in the coming future.

I am saddened to see what this once great nation is becoming. Me, my brother, father, FIL, grandfather, uncles and many friends have served in our military; swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am hopeful that the tree of liberty will not have to pruned.
 
Having heard the audio of the gunfire that accompanied the Mandalay Bay video, I think it's self-evident that bumpstocks were used. I've not heard ANY evidence of full auto weapons. My brother-in-law is a ex Pathfinder Ranger, U. S. Army, who has been in about two dozen operations and has been up against full auto AK-47 armed enemy combatants. He's heard those recordings and said it sounded like AKs to him.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. The Mandalay incident was handled in a ham handed way that has obfuscated a lot of what hapoened, that's true .... but I also do believe in Occam's Razor, and that suggests the simplest explanation is the deceased shooter used the weapons at hand and that the bumpstock equipped weapons played a big role.

I've watched the videos multiple times and it seemed apparent to me that you could hear the cyclic rate speed up and slow down which is indicative of a bumpstock. They can sound distinctly different than a true FA which will maintain the cyclic rate and then as more lead is thrown slow down but remain fairly constant...while with a bumpfire you might hear the cyclic rate increase or decrease which has a direct relation to the forward pressure used on the rifle.
 
I finally got around to seeing if the GOA (Gun Owners of America) had finally filed the suit they promised and indeed they did, on 12/26/18.
For those interested this is the link to the filing.
https://gunowners.org/images//GOA_COMPLAINT-.pdf

Reading through it, there are several interesting statements such as this one that point to exhibits.
On October 6, 2017, a retired ATF Special Agent in Charge sent Acting Director Brandon an email, recommending that ATF ban bump stocks, and that Mr. Brandon ignore the advice of ATF’s technical branch. The email stated: “I recommend an overruling of the prior decision and putting it [bump stock] under the NFA.... You can do it fast and it is the right thing to do, don’t let the technical experts take you down the rabbit hole.” Exhibit 29.

The FPC's page for their lawsuit includes the exhibits, but I can't find them anywhere for the GOA's lawsuit.
 
The FPC's page for their lawsuit includes the exhibits, but I can't find them anywhere for the GOA's lawsuit.

Good catch, I still haven’t had time read the GOA suit. On the topic of interesting exhibits. Jerry Miculek might want to be insuring his trigger finger, as it is part of exhibit 3 & 4 of the FPC suit. They may be coming for him with shears!
 
The Firearms Policy Coalition has also filed suit, and their initial argument is that the rulemaking process was not followed when acting AG Matthew G. Whitaker signed the final rule.

They argue that acting AG Whitaker was improperly designated as acting AG, and therefore does not have the authority to sign the final rule.

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...me-Court-Attorneys-Goldstein-Russell-P-C.html

FPC, which owns a “bump-stock” device, seeks a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and declaratory relief preventing Matthew G. Whitaker from exercising any authority as Acting Attorney General, and preventing from going into effect the ATF’s Final Rule on “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (Docket No. ATF-2017R-22).

The case and motion argue that Acting Attorney General Mathew Whitaker, who President Trump placed into the role after the resignation of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has no authority to issue the rule because the President failed to adhere to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal laws regarding succession and vacancies in the office.
FPC therefore has sidestepped the entire argument on whether bump stocks are or are not machine guns.
 
I have no idea what the legal implications may, or may not be, but some of you might. I suspect it’s much ado about nothing, hopefully I’m wrong.

I should also note this seems to have as much, maybe more, to do with the Atkins Accelerator as a bump stock.

A Freedom of Information Act Request filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Monday seeks presentation and other materials proving bureau decisions to reclassify firearm accessories as machineguns were political and contrary to statutory law, technical evaluations and advice of legal counsel. The request was filed by Stamboulieh Law, PLLC, on behalf of firearms designer Len Savage, President, Historic Arms, LLC.
.
.
.
The reason behind the request is some startling testimony made in a Verified Declaration by former ATF employee Richard Vasquez in the cases of Guedes v. BATFE/Firearms Policy Coalition v. Matthew Whitaker, filed Friday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In addition to having his expert qualifications recognized by federal courts, Vasquez declared that :

“Over my 14-year tenure, I held the titles of Senior Technical Expert, Assistant Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch (‘FTB’) Acting Chief of the FTB, and Acting Chief of the Firearms Training Branch.”

In his sworn statement, Vasquez cited a briefing from several years back for then-ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan and notes:

“During the briefing, the Chief Counsel’s Office provided a written brief and a PowerPoint presentation, which discussed ‘automatically’ and ‘single function of a trigger.’ The brief and PowerPoint presentation, based on the intent of Congress and the statutory text, detailed how even the Akins Accelerator was not a machinegun. However, Acting Director Sullivan decided, against the advice of the Chief Counsel’s Office, to declare the Akins Accelerator a machinegun.”

That the boss would go against qualified experts and legal counsel is not surprising to those who followed the anti-gun enforcement machinations of the George W. Bush political nominee dubbed “Maximum Mike” for going after strong sentences.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/fo...ts-machinegun-ruling-political/#ixzz5fQ9YgsBv



Also the court has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday for oral arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction in that case. I’ve been told the GOA is hoping to hear back from their injunction by the end of the month.
 
Last edited:
I've been wondering about this. I think I will start a separate thread because it's not quite the same question.
 
The Guedes case has been dismissed by a judge. Details to follow, but the judge says they failed to prove their case.
All that this did was deny preliminary injunctive relief. As to the one substantive issue in the case, here's the money quote from the opinion:

"As for the Takings Clause challenge, the plaintiffs have not shown that preliminary injunctive relief rather than future compensation is appropriate."

Therefore, the main issue here is still unresolved.

As for this particular case, the judge's opinion was quite thorough and workmanlike and is unlikely to be reversed on appeal.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.789c278d1b14

In a 64-page decision, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich found that the Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups did not put forth any convincing legal arguments in favor of stopping the Trump administration from carrying out the ban, which targets a device used in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history

Thank you, Donald for making a proactive effort to weaken the 2nd Amend. So all who thought Donald was the gun messiah - guess again. Don't tell me that Kavanaugh is the gun messiah. That is an empirical question as to when some gun cases actually are taken up and decided by SCOTUS. We have the NYC case. Hopefully, we get a clear cut decision without the Scalia (he was a god, Blasphemy) rhetoric that is used against the RKBA in so many state and lower Federal court rulings.

The precedent is clearly there for an administrative gun ban if the administration changes (Executive Order - build the wall, ban the guns, free marshmallows for all!). Nancy has clearly stated it is a possibility.

After the expiration of the Federal AWB and the spread of shall issue carrry (but leaving out major states), it's not been a clear road to increasing the RKBA implementation. It is clear that GOP elite have no interest in such as they just want to keep the threats around for fund raising based on defense and not improving the situation.

Rant off.
 
"As for the Takings Clause challenge, the plaintiffs have not shown that preliminary injunctive relief rather than future compensation is appropriate."

How would someone show that compensation is not appropriate (or less appropriate than injunctive relief)? The ATF's midrange estimate is a $32 million cost for implementing this rule (presumably including the value of the individual bumpstocks that are lost by individuals). Is it not enough to show that an injunction costs nothing but moving forward and then reverting to current status costs somewhere around $30 million?

Do any of the lawsuits have a manufacturer as a plantif? The best argument I could see for injunctive vs compensatory relief would be "our business will fail and we won't be able to restart the business if the ruling is later reverted".
 
How would someone show that compensation is not appropriate (or less appropriate than injunctive relief)? The ATF's midrange estimate is a $32 million cost for implementing this rule (presumably including the value of the individual bumpstocks that are lost by individuals). Is it not enough to show that an injunction costs nothing but moving forward and then reverting to current status costs somewhere around $30 million?

Do any of the lawsuits have a manufacturer as a plantiff? The best argument I could see for injunctive vs compensatory relief would be "our business will fail and we won't be able to restart the business if the ruling is later reverted".
The judge rejected these arguments. Read the opinion.

Once the ban takes effect, the (former) bump stock owners could file a class action against the U.S. government for monetary compensation, based on the Takings Clause. They would have to submit proof of what they had paid for their bump stocks, and proof that they had in fact destroyed or surrendered the bump stocks. The government would argue that this is a "public safety prohibition" or an "exercise of police power" and not a "taking for public use." Most likely, the government would prevail:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3833&context=lcp
https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1911&context=hl
 
So all who thought Donald was the gun messiah - guess again.

I can’t say I know a single person that thought that.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand another Clinton wouldn’t have been any better though. Much less 2 more liberal, legislate from the bench, SCOTUS Justice’s.

You are 100% correct in that the GOP absolutely loves to kick the can down the road to keep “energized” voters. When they sell “us” out, it’s a tough pill to swallow for sure. The current POTUS isn’t the first self proclaimed “pro gun” POTUS to erode the 2nd Amendment though.
 
Got this in a email from FPC today.

Here’s the background: On February 25, a federal court judge ruled against requests for a preliminary (temporary) injunction to stop the ATF’s unconstitutional and unlawful new gun control rule.

Within minutes of the Feb. 25 ruling our attorneys immediately filed a notice of appeal and have moved for an expedited briefing schedule and oral arguments at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This was just granted today! Meaning our world-class attorneys now have to act fast.

Our two opening briefs are NOW due on March 4th, our two reply briefs are due on March 15th, with oral arguments scheduled for March 22nd in the FPC and FPF consolidated cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top