Firearms Policy Foundation, GOA Ask SCOTUS to Stop Bump Stock Ban Enforcement

bump stock ban supreme court appeal stay

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan (Doug Mills/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

This is a follow-on to our earlier post regarding the Firearms Policy Foundation and the GOA. If you’ve been keeping score, three Circuit Courts have now ruled on requests for a delay in enforcement of the ATF’s reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns, which is due to start tomorrow.

Both the Tenth Circuit and DC Circuit issued stays. The Sixth Circuit denied a request for a stay. The Firearms Policy Foundation, which is a party to the DC Circuit action, and Gun Owners of America, which is involved in the Sixth Circuit suit, have filed emergency applications to the Supreme Court for a stay.

Here’s the AP’s report:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun rights groups are asking the Supreme Court to stop the Trump administration from beginning to enforce its ban on bump stock devices, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

The groups asked the court Monday to get involved in the issue and keep the government from beginning to enforce the ban for now. The ban set to go into effect Tuesday has put the Trump administration in the unusual position of arguing against gun rights groups. It’s unclear how quickly the court will act.

President Donald Trump said last year that the government would move to ban bump stocks. The action followed a 2017 shooting in Las Vegas in which a gunman attached bump stocks to assault-style rifles he used to shoot concertgoers. Fifty-eight people were killed.

comments

  1. avatar Danny Smith says:

    Trump has lost my support since he jumped on the anti-gunners bandwagon.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      So which Socialist will you be voting for next year?

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        The socialist from New York, Donald J. Trump?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Lol… Ok…

          Three years in and people still keep underestimating Trump.

          How did that “muh’ Russia” thing work out for O’bung’hole’s moles in the DOJ?

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Hey, walking example of battered wife syndrome, don’t forget to wear your MOLON LABE shirt when you go vote for Obama 2.0. LOL. Underestimating President Trump. LOL. Don’t tell me, you are one of those “chess vs. checkers” guys, where President Trump’s and the NRA’s secret plan unveils itself at the last minute and unicorns emerge from the end of the rainbow. LOL. The largest ever piece of gun control enacted by executive fiat and the, so called, pro-gun crowd can’t wait to get more. LOL

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey fucktard. What exact gun is this controlling?

        4. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Hey, useful idiot, haven’t you heard, according to the ATF, a bump stock IS A MACHINE GUN.

          Not that this is about those stupid bump stocks in the first place, but about rewriting laws by executive fiat to outlaw a firearms part. The fucktard is you, who doesn’t understand that the application of the Chevron deference by the ATF to redefine the term “automatic” sets legal precedent.

          If this stands, President Pocahontas can redefine the term “automatic” in 2021 using the same legal concept to outlaw magazines of a certain capacity or even semi-automatic firearms, because it makes a semi-automatic fire at a similar rate to an automatic.

          The irony is that the bump stock itself and its ban is based on the 1986 machine gun ban, when fucktards like you were OK with it. We are getting continuously screwed by Fudds like you, who are willing to give in every freaking time.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Cumstain, the chevron defense is on its last legs. There’s already a case pending and the writing is on the walls.

        6. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          If you say so, it must be true then. LOL. It’s far more complicated than that, simpleton. In fact, the bump stock case may reaffirm Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), because of the political implications of overturning the bump stock ban. Once again, a political SCOTUS decision could screw us for decades to come with the help of a Republican President and useful idiots like you.

          Anyway, so, you are saying that you are OK with President Trump violating the Constitution, as long as there is a small amount of hope that SCOTUS will stop him. Interesting!

          The irony is that if Hillary had won, you would be fighting her gun control agenda tooth and nail. Since Trump is President, a little bit of gun control here and there seems to be OK, “because he isn’t Hillary”. LOL.

      2. avatar raptor jesus says:

        Whichever one is going to equitably tax the mega-rich, end dynasty wealth transfers, provide health care and education to the population, and be the least anti-gun.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Whichever one is going to equitably tax the mega-rich, end dynasty wealth transfers,…”

          To borrow a phrase, “By what authority”….do you determine how much wealth a person or family may accumulate? How much is “equitable”? Why not more?

          Politics of greed and envy. Pauperizing the wealthy (however defined) will not improve anyone’s standard of living. We have been through this exercise before (Simpson-Bowles panel). Confiscating all the wealth of everyone holding over $250,000 would fund the government for nine months; there would be no year two. The problem you are trying to pin on the wealthy is not a lack of funds, but a refusal to control spending. But, here is the killer….the US borrows more each year than the amount you think the wealthy owe.

          Budget shortfalls are not due to lack of tax revenue, but because politicians lose their nerve when credit monitors threaten to downgrade our bond ratings. Given over 50 years of running deficits (with no real consequence), the reason everyone isn’t wealthy is because government refuses to borrow enough money to assure each individual is a millionaire. What is the difference between reckless borrowing, and just cutting out the money changers by simply printing whatever amount of money satisfies every demand? Either way, we have unimaginable debt.

          Taking the wealth of others under the fiction that doing it legally is somehow different from armed robbery, demonstrates a corruption of character that is insufferable and indefensible. What is mine is mine; what is yours is yours. I don’t want your stuff, or your wealth. Why can’t you leave me alone?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Hey, ol’ buddy, I hear ya’. Full agreement here. Trump’s gotta go; Orangeman bad. There’s gotta be someone out there who will give us a roaring economy, historic unemployment, potentially honest and constitutionally faithful federal and supreme court justices, and who actually has the real potential to get elected.

      Could you maybe pass along a name, or a campaign website for that person?

      1. avatar Josh says:

        I guess if we elect Donald Trump and then Donald Trump nominates Supreme Court justices who rule against his own attempts to restrict gun rights, that’s a win in some weird roundabout way…isn’t it?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I guess if we elect Donald Trump and then Donald Trump nominates Supreme Court justices who rule against his own attempts to restrict gun rights, that’s a win in some weird roundabout way…isn’t it?”

          What you are observing is a masterful combination of 97th dimension chess, coupled with live versions of Mine Sweeper and Battleship.

          Whatever works.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          Makes *exactly* as much sense as voting for a Democrat president, so the congressional Republicans will actually resist additional gun control. It worked exactly that way with Obama, and little to no federal gun control passed. Now that ‘we’ control all three branches of government, we’re seeing the largest gun confiscation in history. The difference in these ‘strategies,’ is that we don’t have control over what some court will do, but we can control who we vote for. So, do you trust some judge we know nothing about (on gun issues) more than the NYC gun-banner who chose him, or do you trust that Republicans will always take the chance to oppose Democrat gun control as a way to appear pro-gun without having to actually do anything themselves?

          It’s not 4D chess; it’s game-theory

      2. avatar Randy Soles says:

        There is nobody else. Yes trump has some faults, but he’s the only one who is actually working for us. The dems want to disarm you and then take all your rights.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is nobody else.”

          Gotta be someone else electable. Can’t vote Dimwitocrat, can’t vote Trump, can’t sit home. Somewhere, there is a pure conservative politician with the money and organization to defeat Trump and the Demoncrats, simultaneously. Yes there is. Somewhere, somehow, some parallel reality.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          He hits you because he loves you, and no one else will ever love you. He told you so.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          @Sam I Am
          There was such a figure; he was called Ted Cruz, but too many people wanted to vote for the bright, shiny object being promoted by liberal-media despite all the clear evidence he’d bite us on the ass (and on this issue, specifically). Cruz was 2nd place, was almost everyone else’s 2nd-favorite pick unlike Trump, had a national organization working all the primaries & caucuses while Trump played catchup for the first half of the primary race, and was raising more money from more people than anyone until the primary was nearly over.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I could give your theory some attention, but Cruz (who I am glad remains a senator) faded into insignificance after the primaries. He has not been a galvanizing force for good, and proved he could not be elected president. I suspect Cruz is full-on “Never Trump”, someone comfortable with losing while looking classy, someone resenting a cretin like Trump accomplishing what Cruz and others failed over the years. Remember, Cruz could not muster enough votes to disassemble Obamacare, leading to a McCain victory.

          People often noted that more people voted for the other 15 candidates combined, than voted for Trump. The message was supposed to be that Trump was not wanted as a candidate by the majority of Republicrat voters. However, when you point a finger at someone, you have four pointed back at yourself. In this case, the same comparison was valid for all the other 15 candidates; more people voted for other candidates, than for any one candidate in particular. Taken to its logical conclusion, the choice of Republican voters was, “None of the Above”.

          Cruz was too much a part of the swamp/establishment for the majority of Republicrat voters. They wanted someone to play smash-mouth football against the Dims, not someone enamored with Queensbury Rules of the gentleman. Cruz could be fronting for Trump, and a real tag-team player, but he remains mostly in the background, silent in the face of an unprecedented 24/7 assault on the sitting president of his own party. Cruz is a formidable intellect, but not a gutter fighter. He knew the whole Mueller thing was an attempted coup, yet, like other Never Trump Republicrats, was mostly silent and complicit in the attacks by the deep state.

          I would like Trump to appoint Cruz to the SC, but only at the end of Trump’s second term. I don’t want a Never Trump justice on the SC while Trump is president. However, if Thomas would cooperate, and step down before Trump leaves office, I would cheer Cruz as a nominee, even while Trump is in office. (The Thomas thing is a whole ‘nuther discussion.)

          Bottom line? I don’t really trust Cruz to be a fighter, but a highly competent bureaucratic president.

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        https://kamalaharris.org/

        LOL! Sorry, couldn’t resist.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          https://kamalaharris.org/

          LOL! Sorry, couldn’t resist.”

          Harris is a puzzlement (though she does not qualify as a person who would reliably protect the 2A). When she announced, I wondered if we would see a rerun of 2008. Harris checks all the boxes (except total wacko) for the New Dims. How can the party not put forth Harris, as opposed to all the other 246 Dim candidates?

          But thanks for the name and link.

        2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          She earned her early political positions the old fashioned way, on her knees and on her back.

    3. avatar Mark says:

      Well you might as well sell your guns now then while you can.

    4. avatar Joe says:

      Just in case nobody noticed, Trump is the first US President to enact a major gun control rule in 25 years. Keep lying to yourselves and saying he’s on our side. He’s on whatever side the wind is blowing.

      “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Donald Trump said that on February 28, 2018. If some Democrat had said the exact same words, everyone would be throwing a fit, but when Trump says it we all pretend we didn’t hear it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Just in case nobody noticed,…”

        You present one of the most interesting questions…if you could reliably get everything you wanted from Trump (and the Republicrats), but had to accept imperfect support of 2A, would you sit home on election days, and ultimately lose everything over a single issue?

        Just for the exercise….how you approach a situation where the SC ruled that “the people” have the unrestrained right to legally own any weapon, or firearm they could afford, but all weapons must be declared on a federal registry, accessible by anyone with a $50 fee for searching the registry?

        Single-issue voters have puzzled me since my first high school civics class. Over the years, many different representatives of professions, guilds, skills, education declared that a single-issue was politically superior to every other consideration in the universe. Oddly, those same people (no, I haven’t surveyed the entire population of the planet) would often declare they would not support a politician who was “shady” regarding issues other than the single demand around which they built their litmus test. This seems a muddled line of reasoning. In other words, some of the single-issue people encountered would actually sacrifice their single-issue if that issue was championed by someone who otherwise was not of fine character.

        1. avatar Eli2016 says:

          “Single-issue voters have puzzled me since my first high school civics class. Over the years, many different representatives of professions, guilds, skills, education declared that a single-issue was politically superior to every other consideration in the universe.”

          I concur. Now may i drink my coffee and go out to the range with my multiple-issue friends? Sometimes you make too much sense Sam. It’s scary, especially on these forums. Have a nice day.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sometimes you make too much sense Sam.”

          Now, that is something that should frighten everyone. Especially since I rarely make sense to myself.

          (oh yeah…please take your compatriots to the range often; i love the smell of cordite in the morning, etc.)

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        “Trump said stupid shit” is not an argument. I don’t care what he says. I care what he does. Allowing a Demokkkommie into the White House is national suicide. No other GOP candidate had the balls to beat Hitlary. Those are objective facts. Deal with it.

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Trump is a flawed candidate when it comes to the Second Amendment, but the others on the Republican
          side were worse. The Democrats then and now are a nightmare!

        2. avatar Ton E says:

          And him actually going through with his ban is what?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          This ban? A strategic calculated risk. Maybe it will pay out, maybe it won’t. Given the current SCotUS docket, I like our chances.

  2. avatar tdiinva says:

    I am not sure that the ATF can enforce the regulation as long as there are conflicting court rulings.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      There are no conflicting court rulings. The courts decided to give certain persons a stay on the ban until their case is decided. There was no nation-wide injunction or restraining order. There was no decision made on the merit of the constitutionality of the bump stock ban by any court. Half-a-million bump stock owners in this country got screwed by President Trump and the NRA.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        It is an effective injunction. The ATF is not going to charge anybody with violating a ban that might be declared unconstitutional.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          The current effective injunctions cover plaintiffs in the FPC and Utah suits and all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). That’s it. There is no nation-wide injunction, which is why the FPC and GOA are asking SCOTUS for it.

          Everyone who owns a bump stock and is not a plaintiff in the FPC or Utah suit or a member of the FPC by midnight is a criminal according to the “law as written”. I don’t think the FPC will suddenly have 520,000 new members by midnight. Their only relief is SCOTUS.

          The ATF can charge anyone who is in illegal possession of a bump stock, starting midnight. Their only hope would be that any of the bump stock cases wins. If all of them lose, those that were charged in the meantime can be convicted, while those that were protected under the injunctions can not.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “The ATF is not going to charge anybody with violating a ban that might be declared unconstitutional.”

          Don’t bet the farm on that. This is no longer rule of law but rule of despots. Remember the President started this whole fiasco instead of simply shutting the hell up and letting it blow over. Better yet, he could’ve stood in support of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. He chose very poorly.

          “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” – Donald Trump

  3. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Will the Court just make a ruling or decline to make a ruling? Or will they hear the two sides out?

    Either way, it seems to me what they do next could hold clues about how they will be inclined to act in the near future, on other cases.

    Or, maybe I should just quit main-lining Heroin…

  4. avatar Truckman says:

    I am against gun laws like that but have not figgered out what good a bump stock is good for except wasting ammo and I can waste more than I can afford without one in a SKS or AK by just pulling the trigger but they should not be outlawed although the state did it in FL. here glad I never got one that way I have not lost any money

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “I have not lost any money”

      You, me, and every other schmuck lost something way more valuable than money; liberty.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Oh really? Let me know when the dust settles johnny boy. You don’t know dick about what’s going on in DC right now. HINT: There are much bigger things at stake at the moment than a mostly useless piece of plastic. Rather than running around like a retard with his ass on fire, why don’t you deal with the fact that we’re in a war with open communists trying to overthrow our government?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          STFU commie. You misrepresent posts and outright lie. Get Trump’s cock out of your mouth.

  5. avatar possum says:

    Well GOA can piss in the wind, Our president said bumpstocks are Illegal and He is above any Constitution or law

  6. avatar Pwrserge says:

    … and we’re back to retards running around as if their asses were on fire over cases still in progress. God damn people. Did the last three years teach you nothing? How’d “muh’ Russia” turn out for the Demokkkommies? Take a deep breath, relax, and watch what happens at the circuit and SCOTUS level. There will be plenty of opportunities to commit suicide by allowing a Demokkkommie into the White House soon enough.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Is the widdle commie gonna cry again or just lie some more? ROTFLMFAO!

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Hey shitstain. You able to point me to the guns Trump is banning yet?

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          Bump Stocks have been reclassified as Machine Guns lol. I know this has been pointed out to you in this thread.

    2. avatar ‘liljoe says:

      Without devolving into insults I’d like to bring up a point. As has been the case during the Obama years, many of us are one issue voters. If you mess with the second (or threaten to) we will vote you out. I don’t own a bump stock, but am aware this raises a serious concern. If you can just rewrite definitions what’s to stop the current government from deciding 3.5 lb triggers are “machine guns”, flash hiders are “suppressors” and arm braces + pistols are SBRs?

      I did vote for Trump, I’m a one issue voter, and he’s lost me unless he manages to pull something out in the next year (making SBRs and suppressors legal to buy as an accessory otc without a stamp would be nice).

      Does that mean we might get a communist or socialist candidate? Absolutely, but the wheel turns, and the next Republican/conservative may at least be aware that limiting gun rights is a losing proposition. The Democrats learned that lesson the hard way and for 15 years stopped trying to push serious gun legislation through. (They’ve forgotten, but will be reminded next time again).

      Again, I understand your priorities are different than mine, but there are a lot of people on this site over the years who were one issue voters, some are not any more, I’m not one of them.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Absolutely, but the wheel turns, and the next Republican/conservative may at least be aware that limiting gun rights is a losing proposition.”

        Are you stating that you surrender every other conservative, constitutional or protect the nation concern? The intent of the Demoncrats is to eliminate the conservative element in this nation, guns are only one target. Underestimating evil allows evil to prosper.

        Demanding perfection in anything only results in loss. You seem to have faith that if Demoncrats control all the government there will be non-Demoncrat politicians elected to high office. We are on the way to finding that any disagreement with statist/liberal/authoritarian politics is a form of terrorism. The political war is fought on all fronts. Deciding to vote only for a hard core 2A supporter to the exclusion of every other value will not increase the number of voters in our overall favor. Once the Demoncrats hook enough voters on free benefits, the game is over, and even the Second Amendment, indeed, the entire constitution, is doomed.

        So, for all the single-issue gun owners concerned only with possessing a firearm, you will eventually earn the government you deserve, create.

        1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

          But that’s the thing, I’m not conservative in every aspect, and I’m not liberal in every aspect as well… most people aren’t one way or the other. So I vote on what’s important to me, and this was one of the more important ones. I’m not betraying my principles saying I’ll vote against Trump next election, since there are things on the democrats side that I support as well (abortion being a good example). I probably won’t vote Democrat but there are other names in the ballot.

          Will I get the government I deserve? Who knows, but the same can be said to those who will sacrifice a bit liberty for a bit of security. Dying by inches is still dying.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I probably won’t vote Democrat but there are other names in the ballot.”

          Why waste the energy marking the ballot for someone who cannot win? Once the two parties (and there really are only two parties) each produce a candidate, a throwaway vote serves no purpose. Pick a horse and ride it.

          BTW… we are in a situation where the two parties both desire an end to the republic, but differ in the speed each approaches the task (hard landing vs. soft landing). So…dying by inches is preferable to dying fast.

    3. avatar Cory C. says:

      Serious question: If the bumpstock ban stays in effect, say, through the point that Trump leaves office, will you admit that you got this one wrong?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If Trump’s supposed masterplan doesn’t work out and the bumpstock ban stays in effect, will you admit that you got this one wrong?”

        To what purpose? Trump is often wrong, intentionally or not. Trump is not perfect. Whether the bump stock ban stands or falls, the ban was wrong. Doesn’t mean we should surrender the field to the gang we know want us hobbled into inconsequential.

        BTW, has anyone noticed that single-issue voters are always unhappy? Just like the leftists, socialists, authoritarians?

      2. avatar Milton says:

        He’ll never admit that, he’s basically said he likes Trump regardless of gun rights. The only question is how many gun people he or other partisan fudds will succeed in manipulating – he could guess it’s a lot after the 2016 and 18 elections; plenty of others drinking the orange kool-ade. Not too late to start calling it what it is, though.

  7. avatar Tex Secular says:

    Odd they are not using the tried and true “thoughts and prayers” to get this done. Almost like that shit don’t work for anything one “really” wants to change.

  8. avatar surlycmd says:

    President Trump was elected because he played the electoral process better than Clinton. Enough people in the States he won voted for a person outside of the political swamp. In essence, a corrupt businessman vice another corrupt politician.

    Supporting liberty and freedom means supporting the rights of others. Even if you don’t like how they exercise those rights. Until this once again becomes a core belief in this country, it will all circle the shitter.

  9. avatar james says:

    People are missing the true damage of a ban on bump stocks. It’s really about big brother taking another right from you, If you want make it a super severe penalty if you commit a crime with a bump stock.that’s fine. I guarantee you there will be something else in the near future the gov’t wants to take from you. I don’t own a bump stock but I own the god given right to have one if I want it.

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