The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: Elderberry on December 07, 2021, 08:05:35 pm
-
NRA-ILA 12/6/2021
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20211206/sixth-circuit-bails-out-atf (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20211206/sixth-circuit-bails-out-atf)
Last week, the Sixth Circuit failed to achieve the majority necessary to correct the ATF’s shifting classifications of bump stocks as “machine guns.” NRA-ILA’s amicus brief opposed the ATF’s legal authority to arbitrarily criminalize legal firearms. Because the judges split 8-8, the flawed bump stock rule is being reinstated.
This is only one of several challenges supported by NRA-ILA. In September, ILA also filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in another case challenging the ATF’s authority to legislate your firearm rights. The Justices will decide whether to hear that case —Aposhian v. Garland—at the Court’s December 10th conference.
Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters recognize the importance of these cases and why they implicate much more than bump stocks. The underlying issue is whether the ATF can usurp Congress’s exclusive authority to criminalize American firearm rights. NRA-ILA argues against such sweeping ATF authority.
While ILA is disappointed in the Sixth Circuit’s failure to achieve a proper majority on this important topic, we remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will rectify this error by accepting—and correctly deciding—the Aposhian case.
-
Split en banc decision on bump stocks is a win for feds
Courthouse News Service by Kevin Koeninger
https://www.courthousenews.com/split-en-banc-decision-on-bump-stocks-is-a-win-for-feds/ (https://www.courthousenews.com/split-en-banc-decision-on-bump-stocks-is-a-win-for-feds/)
An 8-8 split among Sixth Circuit judges over the classification of bump stocks as machine guns means a federal judge's decision to grant the government deference in its interpretation of federal law will be reinstated.
In a blow to gun rights activists, an en banc appeals court on Friday split evenly in its ruling on the legality of bump stocks, which reinstates a lower court decision to allow the federal government to outlaw the rapid-fire devices as machine guns.
A three-judge panel had previously ruled in favor of Gun Owners of America Inc. and several other plaintiffs when it determined the government is not entitled to Chevron deference in the interpretation of a criminal statute. Established after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1984 case Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., the doctrine holds that a court may not substitute its own opinion in the place of a reasonable interpretation made by an administrative agency.
The panel's opinion was written by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, an appointee of George H. W. Bush, and overturned the decision of a federal judge who had previously denied the gun rights group's motion for an injunction.
Batchelder determined there is no ambiguity in the portion of the National Firearms Act that deals with machine guns, and because bump stocks do not fit the statutory definition, they cannot be outlawed.
The panel's opinion, however, was vacated when the Cincinnati-based appeals court opted to rehear the case with the full court, and oral arguments were heard in October.
Batchelder sat on the en banc court because of her involvement in the original decision, and took the place of U.S. Circuit Judge Chad Readler after the Donald Trump appointee recused himself.
Friday's split 8-8 order included opinions from two of the court's judges, U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White, an appointee of Barack Obama, and U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, also a Trump appointee.
-
Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0279p-06.pdf (https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0279p-06.pdf)
-
Damn.
-
I don't think "bump stock" make a "machine gun",but they damn sure make a dangerous weapon.
I know I am going to be stepping on some toes here,but the damn things are both dangerous AND stupid.
It's almost like some goober created a "goober think tank" to solve the age-old questions,"What can we do to make a firearm BOTH more dangerous and less accurate?"
Not to mention useless.
BUT.........,"Yes,I DO agree that it is the business of our legislature to have the final word on this sort of thing,not some fumbling and bumbling un-elected bureaucrat.
-
It's almost like some goober created a "goober think tank" to solve the age-old questions,"What can we do to make a firearm BOTH more dangerous and less accurate?"
........
BUT.........,"Yes,I DO agree that it is the business of our legislature to have the final word on this sort of thing,not some fumbling and bumbling un-elected bureaucrat.
Seems a lot of gun owners agree (not the best thing for accuracy), but most all also agree, let the shooter decide what is best (let freedom ring). The government need not stick it's nose in something it doesn't like because it a check and balance on itself (Shall not infringe).
-
I don't think "bump stock" make a "machine gun",but they damn sure make a dangerous weapon.
I know I am going to be stepping on some toes here,but the damn things are both dangerous AND stupid.
It's almost like some goober created a "goober think tank" to solve the age-old questions,"What can we do to make a firearm BOTH more dangerous and less accurate?"
Not to mention useless.
BUT.........,"Yes,I DO agree that it is the business of our legislature to have the final word on this sort of thing,not some fumbling and bumbling un-elected bureaucrat.
Regardless of whether it is a good idea, the question is one of whether the stock makes a semi-automatic rifle a machine gun.
NOPE.
It doesn't. It makes no change in the number of times the trigger must be actuated in order to fire the rifle. Once for every round fired.
It makes actuating the trigger more efficient to achieve the maximum rate of fire out of a semi-automatic rifle. That's all.
That is the question to be decided, not whether these devices are a particularly good idea.
I can see where, with practice, someone could learn to limit their fire to short 'bursts' (as opposed to dumping the magazine ), and learn to correct aim on the basis of impact instead using the sights, but that sounds like employing a machine gun.
How dangerous a weapon is depends on who is holding it.