BREAKING: DC Circuit Expands Bump Stock Ban Temporary Stay to All Firearms Policy Foundation Members

We’ve reported in the last week that federal judges in both the Tenth and DC Circuits have issued temporary stays of the ATF’s bump stock ban which is due to take effect tomorrow. Those stays, however, only applied to the named plaintiffs in those two suits.

Today, the DC Circuit expanded the universe of those covered by the stay to “current bona fide members of Firearms Policy Foundation.”

We talked to Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Foundation who had this to say . . .

The D.C. Circuit’s order today in our ongoing bumpstock litigation makes it clear that the Circuit Court’s current administrative stay of the ATF bumpstock ban Final Rule applies to current bona fide members of Firearms Policy Foundation. We have already filed an emergency stay application with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts. All further developments will be posted at BumpstockCase.com.

 

UPDATE: The Gun Owners of America report that the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) has denied their petition for a stay. This has no bearing on the rulings in the Tenth and DC Circuits.

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    The courts are REALLY bending over backwards to try to make these stocks go away. I’ve never seen so many plaintiff-only injunctions on a constitutional issue case. Funny how these same scumbags had no problem enjoining the Trump administration from enforcing the “muslim ban” everywhere in the world…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      My theory? They are trying to present a fait accompli to the SCotUS to make it less likely that cert will be granted. After all, if all the stocks were supposed to be destroyed, a single plaintiff case is hardly the scope that the SCotUS generally rules on.

      1. avatar TomC says:

        Actually SCOTUS has ruled on numerous single plaintiff cases over the years – including the case where the court invented its power to declare laws unconstitutional.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Single plaintiff, yes. But in this case the scope of the ruling would be limited to that single plaintiff by a lower court fait accompli. That makes it a lot less likely to get cert.

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          Madison, Jefferson and Paine were all alive in 1803. Is there any record of them disapproving of the ruling?

        3. avatar luigi says:

          (This is meant to be a reply to Nanashi, not TomC)

          This page has several quotes from Jefferson
          http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/284/Thomas_Jeffersons_Reaction

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Nanashi:

          http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

          Jefferson was very displeased with Marbury v. Madison; where the Supreme Court MADE UP the doctrine of Judicial Review. That power was not explicitly granted to the Court in the Constitution. The Court didn’t even try to claim it was granted that power explicitly. Even today, Judicial Review is known as a doctrine and not a power with which the Constitution explicitly empowered the Court. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that the Supreme Court dared wield this stolen power with any impunity.

          “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        can this thing be disassembled?…hide a piece here…hide a piece there….

    2. avatar Binder says:

      AR15.com Full30.com Youtube.com and reddit.com are all bending over backwards to make the stock go away. Every good build thread / video has been pulled or archived in all of them after October 1, 2017. Used to be that there were some interesting discussions about builds and the issues the AFT / NFA were going to have with them. You have to now look in internet archives to find any of that info.

      I just hope that the legislation that is going to come down the pipe is not going to screw us all.

    3. avatar GreenDeal says:

      Thanks to Orange Man and the sheep that voted for him.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        #OrangeManBad Fuck off. Trump was the only one with the backbone to beat Hillary.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Defeating Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and screwing gun owners on Second Amendment issues are two very different things. Trump can do both, and has done. I’m glad he did the former…the latter, not so much.

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          any “red flag” laws under obama?….

      2. avatar Binder says:

        Not a lot of politicians making statements against a bump stock ban. If you can find one, please post a link, would love to see it.

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Please include the NRA, A rated, Jeff Sessions. Former Senator and former Attorney General to the United States. Who authorized the re-writing of this law. Instead of squashing it as he should have done so. Or resigned telling the president that this was unconstitutional.

      4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        You’re a troll. Any 3rd grader can say na na boo boo, orange hair man bad.

      5. avatar Bill Richardson says:

        yeah, because the only alternatives to Trump… hillary and the dems totally support gun rights lol.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          In Green’s deluded little mind one of the other GOP candidates would have magically found the balls to beat Hillary like a red headed stepchild after they couldn’t even beat Trump.

    4. avatar TomC says:

      There is a vast difference between a court decision on a case and the court granting a preliminary injunction. Preliminary injunctions are normally limited to the plaintiff’s.

      The immigration cases you are thinking about were generally decisions, not preliminary injunctions.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Um… nope. The “muslim ban” injunction was granted on January 29th two days after the EO was signed. It was a blanket injunction. Look it up. The ACLU brags about it on their own website.

        1. avatar TomC says:

          The injunction was to prevent harm to the PLAINTIFFS — who were not the immigrants, but entities that claimed they would be harmed by banning those immigrants. It’s a distinction that the media completely failed to understand because they were too busy saying that the court overruled Trump.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Not when the ramifications involve physical property of half a million people, and who will be cast into legal limbo for the duration.

        A blanket stay here is entirely appropriate if not to be expected, if there is any validity to the plaintiff’s argument. The courts probably are trying to preserve the “chilling effect” of the ban on bumpstocks to discourage continued ownership, despite not having a leg to stand on. That, or trying to not “make waves” while casting the whole ban into doubt. Either way they are treading the murky middle on a rather cut & dried issue (either we have a rule of law & Trump can’t just ban stuff becuz, or he can do whatever he wants to anybody)

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Answer seems to be that the president can do whatever he wants to anybody. I can’t wait to see what the next Democrat to occupy the Oval Office does with it.

    5. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The ATF’s ruling was weak to begin with. First the ATF ruled that bump-stocks were legal and then, during a moral panic and attendant politically charged environment, rather too conveniently ruled that bump-stocks were now illegal. This makes the judgement—and remember this is all being done under the color of the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be abridged” language—look to be capricious and arbitrary. The courts will be under enormous pressure to “do something” and find a way to make this weak judgement become more legitimate.
      But what if they can’t do that? We live in interesting times.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        No, the ATF consistently argued against a ban and reclassification (for over a decade), right up until Trump signed a direct order to Sessions telling him to have the DOJ make the ATF reverse its stance. The DOJ submitted the rule change over their heads, their people answered (read: ignored) all our comments & proceeded as officially directed by Trump midway through the comment period. This is one case that is not an example of ATF overreach.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes, they were arguing their way into getting the Demokkkommies to take effective action right before an election. Bumpstock ban hits Congress, it passes by a veto-proof majority or you could sign away the Senate. Lose the Senate and Trump would be on his way to an impeachment on trumped up charges rather than a 2nd term now that “muh’ Russia” has blown up in their faces. I don’t know why, but people keep underestimating Trump. He’s a master of hedging his bets. As always, I’m going to reserve judgement until this all shakes out in court. As with “muh’ Russia”, I suspect he’s busy giving the left wing enough rope to hang themselves. If ever there was a real man capable of pulling off a xanatos gambit, it’s Trump.

  2. avatar D says:

    Personally, I think this is all pointless. If the Court rules that the procedure used to ban them was not proper, they will just find a another method.

    1. avatar Jeremy D. says:

      You can bumpfire from the hip without a stock, its easy once you get the hang of it.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Ah, but that depends entirely on what the court decides to find improper… The procedure, or the concept of a gun component ban in general. Banning something is not a “reasonable restriction” and I suspect that the current SCotUS would agree.

      It’s a Xanatos Gambit in real life.

      Bump stock ban holds up. Federal “assault weapon” bans are weakened for a long time. Trump wins.
      Bump stock ban gets struck down in particular. Trump says “hey, I tried”. Trump wins.
      Firearm bans in general get struck down. Trump wins

      The reality is that the bump stock ban took the wind out of federal anti-gun pushes for long enough that Trump kept the Senate. Keeping the Senate was a victory all its own.

      It’s amazing to me that the NPC crowd keeps underestimating Trump after watching him play everyone around him like a fiddle for three years.

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Never had any use for a bump stock but the right to have one needs to be defended all the way. Damned tired of federal agencies just making up laws on their own. That is a very dangerous thing to do.

    1. avatar TomC says:

      Personally I sorta wanted a bump stock but my interest was specifically for a gun that I don’t have yet and I never wanted one enough to justify the cost (which was exorbitant for what the product is).

      That being said I am only slightly interested in the rather dubious “right” to own one as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment (I don’t see this as a 2nd Amendment issue!), but I am strongly interested in fighting the _process_ by which they were banned – both because they were banned by administrative regulation that lacks any basis in law and because their is no valid ‘public benefit’ to justify a ban.

      It is also wonderful political theater to watch the NRA try to explain to the millions who have been duped into supporting it why the NRA has actively pushed FOR the bump stock ban while the organizations that are actually supporting our rights have been fighting against the ban – and are now winning.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        I’ve never even seen one. But, since I may never own one, I kinda want one. You’re never thirsty until the well runs dry….or something like that.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          They’re fun, just like all the other stuff busybodies try to ban. Fun like a mag dump (and no intelligent gun owner would support a law banning guns that can be rapidly fired), and yet at least half the gun owning community doesn’t understand that.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Damned tired of federal agencies just making up laws on their own. That is a very dangerous thing to do.”

      Yep. The current Court has been making noises they may wish to put the brakes on crap like that, and this just might be the vehicle to do so.

      Either way they decide, it could give helpful clues as to how they may decide cases in the immediate future…

    3. avatar RMS1911 says:

      No federal agency has the power to make laws because they’re executive branch drones.
      The executive branch has no power to make laws only enforce Constitutional ones.
      The judicial branch has no power to make laws only rule on the constitutionality of laws within the actual written Constitution. Precedent is legislating from the bench and unconstitutional.

  4. avatar barnbwt says:

    In other news FPC experiences a surge in membership…

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Watch Firearms Policy Foundation membership quickly grow,now if Negotiating Rights Away hadn’t said Go Ahead and Ban Bump Stocks and instead filed the suit that Firearms Policy Foundation did.
    Instead of hemorrhaging members they may have picked up many,if the rabbit hadn’t stop to s… he may not have been caught by the fox..

    1. avatar TomC says:

      The NRA couldn’t very well fight against the bump stock ban when they were the primary force that pushed it on us.

      We would not have the ban, without the NRA having gone directly to Trump to convince him that they supported a ban (and apparently to suggest how he could get a ban that Congress would not enact).

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Exactly what amendment is it Negotiating Rights Away is supposed to represent,certainly appears is not the Second.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          The 💰 amendment.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @RMS1911: Exactly.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      More like “if the rabbit hadn’t been a vole wearing bunny ears, he wouldn’t have been caught by the fox”

      The NRA are gun-banners this time (again). No “negiotiating” of our rights since they flatly supported the move. Now, I have my theories that anti-gun Trump forced them into that position, but it’s more often than not that the NRA doesn’t support ownership of scary things. In the 80s it was MGs, in the 90s it was milsurp assault weapons, in the 00s it was AR15s (that suit against the 94 AWB never happened, just like the suit against Hughes that also never materialized), and now it’s bump stocks.

      The NRA is to the Bloombergs as the RNC is to the DNC; 10 years behind.

  6. avatar George from Alaska says:

    I’m a contributing member of the Firearms Policy Foundation so I guess my one bump stock is OK for now and I won’t be a felon tomorrow if I don’t destroy it?? Any real lawyers out there please comment.

    1. avatar TomC says:

      Do you live in the District of Columbia?

      Circuit Court rulings, injunctions, and other actions, all apply ONLY within the jurisdiction of that court. This is why there can be conflicting rulings in different Circuit Courts, each of which applies only in the states covered by that Circuit Court. Conflicts between different Circuit Court rulings can only be resolved if the Supreme Court chooses to accept one of the cases involved. These situations are one of the common instances which will often convince the Supreme Court to grant cert.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      I really can’t afford it, but I’ve been trying to send $15 and $20 contributions to FPC at least once a month. They seem to be at the ground level in their continued efforts in D.C. and California (where I don’t live, but I try to support the gun rights movement there anyway.)

      I guess since I actually hold a bona fide FPC card, I should go out and buy a bump stock now – except they are, for now at least, illegal in Washington State.

      I see this as the main issue with fighting the ATF ruling. It isn’t about the constitutionality of banning bump stocks, per se. It’s the process by which they went about doing it. In several states, the legislation – hasty as it may have been – went through the proper process. A ruling that the Federal ban was improper won’t affect the state laws at all. A ruling that the bans infringe on 2A would have far more reaching effects.

  7. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

    Damn, What a great way to get members and more moolah to fight with!

  8. avatar Daniel Grubb says:

    On better note. Fishing lakes, even in low rainfall areas are unexpected higher this month.

  9. avatar WI Patriot says:

    It would seem the worm has turned…

    1. avatar TomC says:

      Surprisingly enough we have seen several pro-RKBA decisions in various courts around the country lately — including some really unexpected places like the Illinois state supreme court.

  10. avatar james says:

    Folks, don’t blame Pres. Trump, a ban can be contested in the courts, if Congress passed a law on bump stocks and it was VETO proof, it is done.

    The ban is designed to fail. Place schematics for full auto vs semi auto rifles, it is clear that parts are missing from the semi auto model.
    Next, look at the abstract from the US Patent #8,607,687, it is clear the trigger is released for each and every round that is fired. Clearly not a fully automatic firearm.

    https://patents.google.com/patent/US8607687

    QED

    1. avatar TomC says:

      Come on James, are you really trying to convince us that the NRA first went to the media pushing a bump stock ban, then lobbied for it in Congress, THEN hatched a conspiracy together with Trump to create that same ban in a way that would be overturned….

      And exactly how would this do US any good because all that will happen if the courts overturn the administrative ban is that Congress will be far more likely to enact the ban.

      And, by the way, if Congress had passed a ban it would probably NOT have been anywhere close to veto-proof even though the NRA was actively supporting it.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It depends on the manner in which the ban is overturned. This gives the courts a way to address gun bans in general. A federal law is much harder to fight than an administrative ruling and but an administrative ruling sets the same precedent when struck down.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          If the whole thing is 4D chess then, as I’ve said here before, it seems more likely that this is a covert way to generally curtail the power of the administrative state. Trump’s pretty good at trolling so that might be the deal.

          However, I have no idea what is actually going on because I can’t read minds. If I was forced to place a wager on the issue I’d bet don’t pass since no matter how this comes out Trump will claim a win and everyone who hates him will claim otherwise or just start screaming “Russia!” like Tucker Carlson after a couple whiskeys and a line of crank.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “If the whole thing is 4D chess then, as I’ve said here before, it seems more likely that this is a covert way to generally curtail the power of the administrative state.”

          4D chess by Trump? Highly doubtful, IMO.

          Putting the reigns on the administrative state, AKA, ‘The Swamp, the Deep State’?

          Considering the noises some members of the Court have been making in the recent past on the un-checked powers that the admin. state seem to be having on America, can you think of a more drop-dead gorgeous way to do so?

          This could be seriously huge, or a bitter disappointment.

          Guess we just wait and find out…

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Thank you. I’m actually shocked at the limited scope of these injunctions. From a legal standpoint, there is plenty of ground for a blanket preliminary injunction. The fact that the court decided to issue a narrow injunction sounds to me like they are desperately praying that this will blow over before the DOJ gets teabagged in a public venue.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      THIS IS PATHETIC.

      You tools have been “3D chessing” Trump’s actions like the bunch of gullible dumbasses you are for a solid 1.5 YEARS, already. Enough is enough; Trump’s done less than nothing for gun owners despite all the bold talk you also fell for, and it’s time you man up & admit it. Or at least recognize it privately, nurse your wounded little pride, resolve to be smarter next time, and stop defending his actions against us all for the time being. Adults are hard at work undoing the hamfisted antigun idiocy of Trump along with a dozen other usual suspects, and this…loathsome drivel, from his clueless, ardent supporters isn’t helping.

      A lifelong New York billionaire is an anti-gun Fudd? Nah, impossible. It’s gotta be some grand unknowable scheme. Bloomberg is running a decades-long gambit to restore the constitution as well, right? Makes exactly as much sense.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Trump’s done less than nothing for gun owners despite all the bold talk you also fell for, and it’s time you man up & admit it.”

        Two names – Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

        Or would you have been happier with the two Hillary would had confirmed to sit for LIFE on the Court?

        Answer the question. 🙂

        Look, Trump is an un-couth boor. I wouldn’t allow my non-existent daughter to be anywhere near him, but considering what we came so very close to having instead of him –

        He’s Prince Fucking Charming, in my book…

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          What have those judges done for us either? “Answer the question” …preferably without referencing shit that never happened (read: Hillary) as your argument. In time they’ll hopefully bear fruit, but SCOTUS appointments are the political equivalent of magic beans. We have about 10 years left at our current rate of decline before coastal metro areas start going dark in this country; we need action NOW. Not self-inflicted wounds and some promises that it’ll one day be worth it somehow.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “What have those judges done for us either? “Answer the question” …preferably without referencing shit that never happened (read: Hillary) as your argument.”

          I will tell you something they did, concrete action.

          The NY Pistol case was granted certiorari. SCOTUS hears it this fall. The plaintiff in that case wanted to take his legal handgun out of NYC to his upstate home. NY said *no*.

          Are you *seriously* going to tell me the 2 Clinton SCOTUS pics would have voted to grant that case cert.? A case that has the potential for the Court to rule carry outside the home is expressly constitutional?

          That’s real, concrete action those 2 court pics did. A 2A rights case is being heard this fall.

          Refute *that*…

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          Thanks for reminding me about the NY case (I’m so used to SCOTUS ignoring us I took it for granted). Yup, that’s real. The magic beans, themselves, are at least real this time. I suppose that’s an improvement. Maybe they’ll bear fruit for us.

          And sure enough, the rest of your argument is in the category of “shit that never happened”

        4. avatar Steve D. says:

          He put William Barr in the AG seat and he’s pro AWB.

          I never believed Trump would defend the Second Amendment when it came down to it.

          He was pro-AWB himself in the 90’s and I’ll never forget how he discussed anti-gun policies with all the usual suspects – “I think we should take the guns first and worry about due-process after” – which made dementiated Nancy Pelosi rub her hands in glee.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Except for the fact that Trump is the only PotUS in living memory to follow up on all his election promises while playing the left like a cheap fiddle. It’s amazing to me that #nevertrump retards and #orangemanbad NPCs haven’t caught on after watching the show for three years.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Reach waaaaay up there and pull your head out of your ass for a second and read these words carefully. “Second Amendment Coalition.”

          “Fulfilled all his campaign promises” you’ve gotta be kidding me. Or trolling. Obamabots weren’t this fucking delusional. He has ‘tried’ to fulfill many of his promises, I’ll grant you that. Or at least publicly appeared to. He’s survived a concerted attack by the bureaucracy, raised business taxes (tariffs), and passed a mixed-bag tax reform bill; that’s really the extent of his concrete accomplishments. The rest is tweets and aborted crap like repealing Obamacare, the border non-wall, the travel ban, and others. And gun control. Lots and lots of gun control. More than we’ve seen at the federal level in DECADES, and endorsing state-level efforts as well. It might seem different waaaay up in there where the NRA/GOP liars keep saying he’s the most pro-gun president evar so gib us monies, but it’s the truth. Accept it.

          Now that Russiagate is over (finally, despite him having had the power to end it all along) and Trump has no distractions, do you 4D chess masters capable of divining his inscrutable will think he’s gonna finally start delivering, or at least not be actively working against us for a while?

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Now that Russiagate is over…”

          Actually, it isn’t. Lindsey Graham just Tweeted James Comey :

          “Graham sends ominous tweet to Comey: See you soon”

          https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-sends-ominous-tweet-to-comey-see-you-soon

          The Senate is about to depose a bunch of Obama Admin. officials about the roles they played in generating that bogus FISA warrant that was used to launch the Muller investigation. You know, the one that contained the phony Steele Trump dossier? The one that was paid for by Hillary?

          There’s a big shoe about to drop…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          barnbwt

          If you’re going to misquote me… try not doing so immediately under the actual post you’re misquoting. Got any more straw men to stuff?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “If you’re going to misquote me… try not doing so immediately under the actual post you’re misquoting. Got any more straw men to stuff?”

          You do that shit all of the time. Don’t like it when it happens to you, eh? lol What a fucking hypocrite.

          Your full quote was:
          “Now that Russiagate is over (finally, despite him having had the power to end it all along) and Trump has no distractions, do you 4D chess masters capable of divining his inscrutable will think he’s gonna finally start delivering, or at least not be actively working against us for a while?”

          And it didn’t change a thing. He didn’t misquote you.

        5. avatar barnbwt says:

          @Geoff
          “Big shoe about to drop” –you’re not one of those Q guys, are you? That sounds like something they’d say. And frankly, I expect all those indictments you describe about the same time we see Hillary in cuffs (speaking of campaign promises). Graham doesn’t run the DOJ, Trump does. Lastly, Comey is the *last* person I want to see made an example of; he’s a flunky, a low-level nothing that’s no threat to anyone at this point. The equivalent of Paul Manafort in the bureaucracy. Mueller’s who I’d want to see humbled if anyone, and not just for the injustices he committed in this farce of an investigation; his crimes against fellow Americans go back decades. Rather than a non-factor Comey, I’d rather see Trump set his sights on the FBI altogether; it’s rotted top to bottom (assuming it hasn’t always been) and is now hostile to the official government.

          @Pwrserge

          Okay, pwrhedge; exactly what *did* you mean by “followed up on” his campaign promises? I’m also pretty sure your post said “fulfilled all his campaign promises” –word for word– since I did a double-take & read it twice –but I’ve been wrong more than once so I may have misread it (twice) since the words look similar in passing. I take it you can understand my astonishment at what I read.

          I don’t give people with a job to do credit for merely “trying.” Especially if they don’t try all that hard, or fail after approaching the job in an incompetent manner and making all manner of sloppy mistakes. Even though we hate corrupt politicians like Obama & Bush, I do give them grudging respect for largely being able to accomplish the things they cared about. Healthcare was Obama’s border wall; he made it happen. Bush’s issue was pacifying Iraq; again, he made it happen despite enormous pressure against him. Trump has repeatedly isolated himself & cut off all his options whenever he encounters even moderate resistance from his negotiation partners, then like clockwork, blames the failure to accomplish anything on them. It’s a great tactic for self-promotion (and as a billionaire-businessman with a huge strategic advantage), but it doesn’t deliver any results for us.

        6. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Healthcare was Obama’s border wall; he made it happen.”

          There’s *BREAKING* news in that department :

          “Justice Department sides with lower court, says Obamacare should be struck down”

          As in, *all* of it, not just the ‘mandate’…

          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-sides-lower-court-obamacare-struck/story?id=61946303

          And that will fulfill a *major* Trump campaign promise… 🙂

          And there’s major breaking news about Jussie Smollet, who claimed Trump supporters tried to lynch him :

          All charges dropped, court records sealed.

          https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-jussie-smollett-charges-dropped-20190326-story.html

  11. avatar C.Meredith says:

    Just an idea here. When are “We the People” going to tell them the politicians that they work “For the People” not rule us like royalty does servants. This nation is owned “By the People” and it sure seems those folks in D.C. are not “Of the People” and they seem to think The Bill of Rights is not very important anymore.
    Personally, I would like to encourage each ánd every one of you Americans, the People in We the People, to contact both your Senators and your Representatives and give them a piece of your mind. Tell them how you feel and what you think about them pissing on the BILL OF RIGHTS, especially the way they walk all over the one that says “Shall not be infringed” because they infringe the hell out of it, a little at a time sinse 1934. Contacting them is easy, they all are on Facebook, twitter, e-mail, all those things. Look them up and tell them we the people are.., well you know what to say. If you don’t tell them all they listen to is each other, and you see what kind of mess happens then. Call, write, fax, send a damn smoke signal but get in touch now!!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Approximately two generations of K-12 students after public education is revamped to a working system.

      So, about 26 years after never.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Parenting. That’s the key…

        1. avatar VicRattlehead says:

          Exactly. Far too many people let all their kids’ teaching happen at school.

          My kids go to public school (by my choice) but my wife and I put a good deal of effort into teaching our kids the stuff they don’t (or can’t) in school. We teach them how to think for themselves and never blindly accept what some teacher, or textbook, spouts off as ‘truth’ or ‘fact’.

  12. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    If anyone has proof a Bump Stock was used at the Las Vegas shooting please post a Link? This is not a trick question. I don’t believe the murderer used a Bump Stock. I believe he used illegally modified AR15’s. And the FBI is hiding that fact.

    I challenge anyone to find the forensic report on the weapons used. It has never been made public. And the AFT has never examined the guns used. They weren’t allowed to.

    Just as the FBI never examined the computer server in Hillary Clinton’s bathroom.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      FYI
      Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/08/lawsuit-filed-against-fbi-for-denying-las-vegas-shooting-foia-request/#ixzz5jDx3tnDK

      “[O]n-scene ATF personnel were not allowed to physically examine the interior of the weapons for machine gun fire-control components or known machinegun conversion devices… [Emphasis in original]”

      A $175 bump stock is cheaper for the average citizen and is legal. Instead of $8000 and up for a real machine gun. Putting inexpensive rapid fire weapons in the hands of more law abiding people is not what the government wants.

      Also a shoulder bump stock weapon is much more accurate than a hip bump fired weapon. And the government knows that to.

      10 22 bump fire

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        And a DIAS is externally invisible. And Paddock was looking into them (via one of those FBI informants that always seem to be “around” major terrorism incidents) in the weeks prior, specifically because he felt bump fire wasn’t reliable enough (per his weirdo brother). Days later, he fires off strings of fire so impressively consistent that even practiced bump-firers couldn’t believe it wasn’t fully automatic. Despite an awkward shooting angle and despite the excitement it all (and despite those Surefire 100 mags, lol). Oh, and interspersed with other short strings of highly inconsistent bump fire. Almost like he was having trouble getting it to work on some ARs, but a Swiss watch on other nearly-identical guns (and it wasn’t buggy mags; report said that mags were found either full or empty for the most part)

        Yeah, shit stinks alright. Bump stocks were certainly there, and certainly used. But if FBI-linked DIAS units from yet-another botched “gun walking” sting were present, even if unused? Holy mother-fucking scandal.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          I want to read the forensic report myself. I don’t trust the government any more.

          https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/

  13. avatar Matt Burchett says:

    Odd bitter-sweetness here. The DC Circuit (tied for tyrannical overreach only with the Ninth “Circus”) allowed 11th-hour relief to 500,000 law-abiding commoners by extending the ban injunction to Firearms Policy Foundation members. Why? There are only two possibilities: 1) The DC Circuit robes went back and read the U.S. Constitution over the weekend or 2) The DC Circuit robes realized that President Trump was the guy behind this illegal ban and wanted to punk the POTUS, even if against their most heartfelt gun-grabbing desires. My bet is Door # 2.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      3) They are trying to hand the SCotUS a fait accompli by forcing most of the population to get rid of their bump stocks before the SCotUS has a chance to rule on the issue. The timing of the stays is not a coincidence. They are desperate and clutching at straws. Now that “muh’ Russia” has pretty much destroyed their chances in 2020, they are desperately trying to stem the bleeding.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Entirely possible; that’s sometimes seen in “may issue” areas, where a permit is always granted, every time…but only after expensive & lengthy litigation by the plaintiff up to the state supreme court or whatever. Because no one is ever denied at that point, there is no standing to appeal to the next level higher (and rinse & repeat).

        You’d have to demonstrate a pattern of this behavior (“your honor, the majority of requests for stays on the bump stock ban have been granted, and the rule itself has not been upheld by any court at this time”) and file as a group to try & get a blanket ruling. Frankly, since FPC membership has exactly fuck-all to do with any of the details of this case, it’s rather laughable that this would be the criteria a judge would use to limit the ruling. It’d be like upholding the ban, but only for NRA members since the org supports the ban, lol.

        I think it’s also possible that at least some of these judges are limiting the scope of the stay so as to throw the ban into doubt (is a federal prosecutor *really* gonna bother pressing charges while there’s stays in effect anywhere in the country and the rule still up in the air?), but without taking a ‘bold’ stand on an issue they probably personally disagree with. It’s about as neutral a stance as they can take, while still pausing the issue pending superior court direction. I suspect this is more about judicial cowardice than hostility, since I understand that the plaintiffs’ arguments have been well-received in at least a few of these venues.

  14. avatar Alan says:

    Gets more and more interesting as time goes by. Who knows, but we might finally see that very long overdue reining in of the ATF, more completely, the BATFE, and it’s oh so questionable regulatory/ rule making/law making by bureaucratic decree antics.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      (shirtless AG Barr with a shotgun) “I doubt it.”

  15. avatar JT says:

    Pistol braces will be next for the ATF to flip on…

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Or all semiautos with recoil force greater than trigger force. This ruling said bump fire without a bump fire stock is ok, but with one is a machine gun. They can just as easily reverse that part of the decision and declare anything able to bump fire to be a machine gun. Almost all semiautomatic guns become machine guns that they don’t have to grandfather, amnesty, or compensate (also per this decision.) Turn them in or 10 years in Federal prison and $100k fine for each one they find. Under Trump, that’s unlikely to happen, but wait for the next Dem prez.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree. I think pistol braces are likely next on the chopping block.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I agree. I think pistol braces are likely next on the chopping block.”

        Doubtful, IMO.

        I believe they realize SBRs likely won’t survive an NFA constitutional challenge with the current makeup of the highest Court, so they will just let that one lie where it is, for the time being…

  16. avatar dumpster says:

    remain clam and keep it bumpin…show no love to the other side

  17. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Our Judicial system is a joke…Full of Marxist activist Judges who should be thrown off the bench! Enemies of the citizenry…were reduced to 3rd world Kangaroo courts….With only half-heart approaches to preserving any of our constitutional bill of rights…Erasing parts that our representatives DON’T like….People who should be doing their job and uphold their oath to protect our Constitutional Rights….

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      This is why the power of Judicial Review was not explicitly granted to the Court in the Constitution. It’s made up doctrine from Marbury v. Madison. In almost all of my posts, anyone can click on my name and check out a good website about the unconstitutional power grab by the Court. The Supreme Court was never supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws. That was reserved for the states and the people.

      http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

      “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

  18. avatar Anonymous4GoodReason says:

    C.Meredith – In “The Free State” we have a special problem with calling our legislative members or even voicing our support for the Bill of Rights in public or private. You see the real reason for the “Red Flag” laws is to suppress the 1st amendment by ignoring/circumventing the 4th thus ending support for the 2nd. Recently, a man was killed in Anne Arundel county for expressing his support in ways that his sister considered dangerous or, my guess is, she heard what she wanted to hear as people often do rather than what was actually said. You can look it up and read the comments of his niece on the subject. So, now, I and most “Free State” 2nd supporters risk losing our guns and the right to ever own another should we say anything that could be construed as in opposition to the pollical agenda. In the workplace, in night clubs, & on the street we now must gather in small groups and speak in hushed voices just as our forefathers had to do before the revolution. There, you see, now I’ve done it, my last sentence could easily be twisted to say that I support armed revolt! I now risk a 5AM search and seizure of all my guns and the onus is now on me to prove my innocence! Essentially, I now have to prove that I am not attempting to incite armed rebellion. How does one prove or disprove intent? You simply cannot do it. It’s a terrible thing to have to live with especially so since that’s the entire reason for the 1st amendment.

    Imagine, if you will, that I said those same words to my state senator or representative, both democrats, all would be lost for me. My guns, my job, my home, & eventually everything else that I own because I would become a convicted felon. All because I expressed the sentiment that I am beginning to understand how the founding fathers must have felt. It’s a sad state of affairs but that’s where we are in “The Free State”.

    The simple fact is, I am writing this to warn you: Beware the “Red Flag” laws, they have sinister, far reaching, and, as far as my reading has revealed, as yet unrealized intent.

    Don’t even ask why I don’t move to another state, it really is a stupid question unless you think I have unlimited funds or an unique ability to generate income.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      Amen, brother!…it’s lights out if these laws stand…

  19. avatar Pablo says:

    Is the stay still in effect? I am only 12 and live in Nexico but I want it to be legal when I come visit relatives in El Paso.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email