Court To ATF Gun-Grabbers: Bump Stocks Aren’t Machine Guns And You Don’t Make The Rules

[Free Vulcan]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) lacked the authority to declare non-mechanical bump stocks “machineguns,” the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held on Friday.

The decision, Cargill v. Garland, is the latest example of the courts foiling attempts by the federal bureaucracy to exercise the legislative power the Constitution vests with Congress, but until the Supreme Court’s separation of powers jurisprudence catches up with the runaway administrative state, the Cargill victory holds limited import.

On Oct. 1, 2017, a gunman murdered more than 50 innocent people in Las Vegas, injuring another 500. The murderer used several weapons, many of which had bump stocks attached. A bump stock, as the court in Cargill explained, “is a firearm attachment that allows a shooter to harness the natural recoil of a semi-automatic weapon to quickly re-engage the trigger after firing, enabling him to shoot at an increased rate of speed.”

https://thefederalist.com/2023/01/09/court-to-atf-gun-grabbers-bump-stocks-arent-machine-guns-and-you-dont-make-the-rules/

[Smokin Joe]

Not that I want a bump stock, but I always thought the rule was seriously flawed in that the function of the action was not changed from seni-automatic to full automatic. All that changed was the efficiency with which the shooter could pull the trigger, taking advantage of the inherent potential cyclic rate of fire of the firearm. The trigger still had to be pulled once for each round discharged.

This is a good ruling, imho.

[Free Vulcan]

Not that I want a bump stock, but I always thought the rule was seriously flawed in that the function of the action was not changed from seni-automatic to full automatic. All that changed was the efficiency with which the shooter could pull the trigger, taking advantage of the inherent potential cyclic rate of fire of the firearm. The trigger still had to be pulled once for each round discharged.

This is a good ruling, imho.

Especially to reel them in and, regardless of the subject matter, tell them that they do not get to make up the rules as they go.

That more than almost anything is what I want the courts to achieve across the vast bureaucracy.

[Smokin Joe]

Especially to reel them in and, regardless of the subject matter, tell them that they do not get to make up the rules as they go.

That more than almost anything is what I want the courts to achieve across the vast bureaucracy.

Lawmaking is for legislators, not bureaucrats.