Actually, Clark Aposhian Is Not the Only Man in America Who Can Legally Own a Bump Stock

bump stock ban tenth circuit

Courtesy NCLA and YouTube

We’ve opposed the ATF’s bump stock ban since President Trump first floated the idea. Arbitrarily re-defining a plastic stock as a machine gun is a jaw-dropping case of regulatory over-reach and sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for future regulation of firearms and countless other aspects of everyday life.

Even the Obama administration and Diane Feinstein recognized its constitutionally questionable nature.

So we couldn’t be more supportive of the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s efforts to overturn the ban and applaud the stay they won for the plaintiff in the Tenth Circuit case, Clark Aposhian (as well as their Texas efforts). But their press release today claiming that Mr. Aposhian is “the only man in America legally allowed to keep his bump stock” goes a little too far.

In fact, there’s another suit in play, one that was filed in the DC Circuit by Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Foundation and others. It resulted in a stay of the ban for all named appellants in that suit, as well. That includes Mr. Guedes and all Firearms Policy Foundation members.

So we continue to cheer on the NCLA as well as the FPC in their efforts to overturn this regulatory power grab. They’re doing good work on behalf of all gun owners and those who care about the Constitutional separation of powers. But we felt we needed to set the record straight.

Here’s the NCLA’s press release and video:

NCLA Releases Video Telling Story of the Only Man in America Allowed to Keep His Bump Stock

Washington, DC, April 03, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance released a video outlining the story of NCLA’s client, W. Clark Aposhian, the only man in America legally allowed to keep his bump stock. Mr. Aposhian, of Salt Lake City, Utah, is challenging the bump stock ban issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). NCLA believes ATF acted unlawfully and that only Congress, not administrative agencies, can write criminal laws such as the ATF’s rule banning bump stocks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a temporary stay of the ban last month which only applies to Mr. Aposhian. The stay prevents the enforcement of the bump stock ban against him while the Court considers his Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal.

Excerpts from the video:

“This case is not about bump stocks. This isn’t a case about whether bump stocks should or shouldn’t be regulated. This case is about who gets to write the law.”

“This case is a perfect example, unfortunately, of what we call the Administrative State. And what I mean by that is, this is a situation where we have an administrative agency, rather than Congress, trying to rewrite the law.” —Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel at NCLA “I’m a proud American, and this is not the way things are supposed to be done in the United States. The American people have a deal with the government, that we know the laws and we obey the laws. But the very people that we expect to be examples of obeying the law, are not doing it. And we will hold them accountable.”—W. Clark Aposhian, Client

NCLA also filed a separate lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of Michael Cargill, a resident of Austin, Texas who turned in his bump stock to the local ATF office while his case is pending before the court.

 

comments

  1. avatar Michael says:

    I thought it applied equally to anyone in the jurisdiction of the 10th. Can someone please clarify. F-K-A.

    1. No. Aposhian is the named plainiff in the Tenth Circuit case and he’s the only one the stay applies to there.

      In the DC Circuit, the stay applies to Guedes and all of the other named plaintiffs in the suit including “current bona fide members of Firearms Policy Foundation.”

      1. avatar Phil Coulson says:

        What’s still unclear is if the DC Circuit stay only applies to FPF members who reside in the states the court has jurisdiction over or the entire nation and if it only covered members as of the stay’s publication date or would also cover any new members who join after it.

      2. avatar Kevin says:

        So, I’m a little confused.

        Are the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation two arms of the same organization?

        I’m a recent new member of FPC and can’t seem to find anything that definitely shows that they are the same or different parts of the same organization.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Come on people, stop being so brain-dead! IT IS A STAY! It is not a win or loss. All this does is stop the government from legally enforcing the bumpstock ban until the courts hear the case and make a decision. It just means that bumpstock owners need to hold on to their BS’s until this is over, and don’t be stupid and take it to the range until the suits have run their course, likely to the SCOTUS!

  2. avatar Biatec says:

    It’s not the atf’s bumpstock ban it’s Trumps bump stock ban. I probably sound rude but we need to be clear to people on this.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      My bet is that Trump did this for a reason, and NOT the reason that 2nd amendment supporters think. Trump isn’t stupid, he knew very well that this bumpstock ban would be challenged and at some point it would be proven unconstitutional. He did this to shut the leftists up! If you wonder why Trump isn’t saying anything about his reasoning, it’s because when you are playing chess, you don’t let your opponents know your strategy!

      Trump is playing three level chess, while the left is playing checkers!

      1. avatar james says:

        Correct, if Congress did the ban it would be the law, they would have overrode a VETO.
        The way the ban is today will not stand in court.

      2. avatar Rocketman says:

        I think your wrong Rattlerjake. If Trump was that smart he would have put a caveat onto the ban, like “okay I’ll ban the bumpstock, but only if you pass a law eliminating the civilian machine gun ban that’s in place right now”. No eliminate of the machinegun ban then no bumpstock ban. We would have gotten something out of it and the courts would have ruled the bumpstock ban unconstitutional.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        hahaha I thought you delusional people were back under your rocks

      4. avatar Fernando says:

        He said today that his father was born in Germany. He was not…

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “It’s not the atf’s bumpstock ban it’s Trumps bump stock ban. I probably sound rude but we need to be clear to people on this.”

      It is also a unConstitutional order/act,that falls firmly of president Trump,mr. your Arms will be safe/you couldn’t have a better friend to the 2 nd. amendment,if I’m elected president.

      Tell us another story

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      yep!…it’s really the republicans who are causing us all this grief…time to call a spade a spade…

  3. avatar WARFAB says:

    I wonder if RW Arms could have sold all of their bump stock inventory to Clark Aposhian for a nominal fee to legally prevent them from being destroyed. RW Arms could have then set up a legal contract to store all of Clark’s bump stocks while awaiting the result of these different appeals. If SCOTUS eventually upholds the bump stock ban then Clark’s bump stocks could have been destroyed at that point. If SCOTUS eventually strikes down the bump stock ban RW Arms could have the purchased all of Clark’s bump stocks and not taken the full loss of having them all destroyed.

  4. avatar Bob Jones says:

    I cannot imagine why anyone would want a bumpstock. Definitely wastes ammo and probably degrades marksmanship. When the SHTF for real, a lot of folks are going to be flat out of ammo by day three.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      I dont need nor want one. The same thing a leftist will say about your guns. Difference being, people who believe in this Country realize that the stifling of any freedom is bad, whether I use it or not.

      1. avatar Squiggy81 says:

        Well said. Seems like a useless range toy, but I support someone else’s right to waste their own ammo. I’ve fired an M&P 15-22 with one before and wasn’t impressed. Fun, but finicky.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          It’s the precedent it sets…not the gadget itself…

    2. avatar HamChuck says:

      You don’t huh? It’s not about the bump stock but I think you might not understand exactly why this is such a big deal. Enjoy your chains. May they sit lightly upon you.

    3. avatar enuf says:

      To play with. That’s it, because plinking is fun. Same reason people with money own NFA machine guns and enjoy big annual shooting get-togethers.

      I would never even consider one to have on a rifle all the time. Certainly would not want one on on a gun used for personal defense.

      But once in a while, on the range and with some fun targets to shoot at, I think I’d enjoy it.

    4. Once again, need isn’t the issue here. Most shooters have no use for a bump fire stock. Forget the relative utility of bump stocks per se. That’s completely beside the point here.

      The real issue at stake with the ban is the terrible precedent it sets. If this stands, a future administration could unilaterally demand that the ATF re-define semi-automatic firearms as machine guns the same way they have with bump stocks. You can see the problem from there.

    5. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      While I may agree with you in regards to a bump stock being useless. Fun
      to some I guess. Its more that it takes Congress to write a law. Not some dumbass agency or even Trump saying I want so and so. Just do it….. our law system doesn’t work that way.

    6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      That isn’t what it’s about,that isn’t what any of this is about,It’s entitled The Bill of Rights ,not the Bill of Needs.

  5. avatar strych9 says:

    I really don’t care about bumpstocks themselves.

    I do care about the other effects, such as taking property without compensation and granting the executive the ability to rewrite a whole law by issuing an “opinion” on a definition that is clearly spelled out.

    Really, to me, the latter is the biggest problem. If we grant the government such an ability then the Constitution and, really, any law passed is meaningless since the “definition” of the words can be changed to mean whatever the people in power want the words to mean.

    Personally, I don’t see the courts allowing this but is that 4D chess or stupidity and blind luck? There seems to be evidence in both directions so I guess we’ll have to see.

  6. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    The other danger in this faulty rule is that it leaves the door open to banning an aftermarket 3 1/2 lb.( for example ) aftermarket drop in trigger replacement. Another slippery slope that endangers the Second Amendment.

  7. avatar james says:

    Many firearms owners say they see no reason to own the bump stock,
    they also say that there is no reason for a suppressor or a SBR.

    I own three suppressors and and one SBR.

  8. avatar james says:

    Place schematics of the M16 and the AR15 side by side, note the missing parts on the AR15 that make it semi auto only.

    Now look at the abstract of the US Patent 8607687B2 the Bump Stock, the trigger must be released and pressed each and every time you want to fire a round, semi auto only.
    Hold the trigger down and only one round is fired, period.

    When intending to fire a round of ammunition, the user pushes the receiver forward with their other hand so that the trigger collides with the stabilized finger.
    Recoil force quickly separates the trigger from the user’s finger on the finger rest.
    The user again pushes forward the receiver to repeat the firing cycle.

  9. avatar jakee308 says:

    This is probably a waste of money and time and makes gun owners look bad.

    This is not going to go well in court as the Congress can delegate any powers it wants to if doing so by law and if those delegated to followed the law to make the rules that are now in force.
    I hate to say that as I think Congress should be held accountable for all laws it passes. that said do we really want these numbskulls to write the laws in detail when they can’t get the major facts straight?
    What does need to happen is a better regulation on how the delegatees make the rules to enforce the laws Congress passes.

  10. avatar Dexter Winslett says:

    Resist. Water the tree of liberty.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      feinstein said it would probably take years for this ban to work its way through the courts…trump made a liar out of her…

    2. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      When Tyranny becomes law, Resistance is duty.

      Join the III Percent. Join your states militia.

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