Bump fire stock ban atf trump
Nick Leghorn for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

First, denying cert in a case is not a ruling on the merits of that case. The decision not to take a case is not an explicit endorsement of a lower court’s ruling. …

Second, there is good reason in this instance why the Supreme Court may want to take a wait and see approach to how the law in this area develops in the lower federal courts.

At present, another bump-stock case, Cargill v. Garland, is making its way through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In December 2021 the Fifth Circuit upheld the ATF rule in this case. However, following a petition by the plaintiff, in June the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc (in front of the full court, rather than just a panel of circuit court judges).

Could the Supreme Court be waiting on the Fifth Circuit to rule en banc before entertaining a bump-stock case? That is a distinct possibility. What isn’t is that the Supreme Court has made a ruling on the merits of these important cases. [ABC’s] Reporters should know better.

— NRA-ILA in No, SCOTUS Didn’t Just Rule Against Gun Rights

Previous Post
Next Post

59 COMMENTS

  1. What should be obvious to anyone with a brain and a knack for the law is that the SC is playing chess and not checkers. People shouldn’t get worked up over any little thing that appears to be a set back.

    • The anti-gun cult wants to conflate bump stocks with full-auto weapons. So, if they lose the bump stock fight in the SCOTUS, shouldn’t that also mean that full auto would be legal for all citizens (elimination of the NFA)?

      Now that would be a set back for the anti’s.

      • Honestly just reopening the full auto registry and striking down state laws preventing stamp collecting would be huge. But kicking the NFA to the curb would be great as well and would lead to an explosion of new and better designs with the demand across the board.

        • This exactly. I don’t actually want a bump stock. I want to be able to get a full auto MP5 or sear/pack to move around, full auto AR lower, and something belt fed would be nice. And not spend $$$,$$$+ on old pre-86 pieces of metal to do it.

        • My AR-10 purchase selection (2017) was made SPECIFICALLY for the repeal of the NFA.

          Patriot Ordnance Factory built my P308 SPR Gen4 Edge with as much of the EXACT same components that go into their FA version that they legally could.
          Even has the Robar NP3 Electroless Nickel/Teflon impregnated coating.
          Can run FA without any lubrication.
          Magpul releasing the D-50 drum was a nice surprise.

          It will be a simple conversation to FA with a few items provided by POF.

          Repeal the NFA!

        • “Get the ball rolling and start funding lawsuits, people, so the GOA or 2A Foundation can get going on them…”

          There’s one currently in the works Geoff. 😉

        • This response is to uncommonsense, in a recent interview one of the justices was asked about to bear arms and what kind of weapon he considers Bearing arms..

          His response, surprised me, he stated that a MANPADs would fall under that “BEAR ARMS” since one person could carry it and he believed the Second Amendment actually supports this arm!!!

          So I’m led to believe the Supreme Court would overturn NFA rules as long as the arms can be carried by one person!!!

        • “… the Bruen verdict should make the NFA defunct”

          I doubt the SCotUS will go that far, as much as I would like it to.

          Why? Read the first ‘Heller v. D.C.’ ruling, where Scalia, in his opinion, recognized there were exceptionally-dangerous weapons.

          The court may be open to entertaining the notion of re-opening the registry, however, especially when it got enacted improperly in the first place on a procedural trick. I also think it’s reasonable we can force the slave states to allow stamp-collecting.

          Get the ball rolling and start funding lawsuits, people, so the GOA or 2A Foundation can get going on them…

        • Geoff PR,

          exceptionally-dangerous weapons

          That phrase in the Heller decision is incredibly vague. Does that refer to full-auto rifles? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it only applies to grenades, grenade launchers, mortars, recoiless rifles (formerly known as “bazookas”), and landmines which are rather indiscriminate and devastating compared to full-auto rifles.

        • “That phrase in the Heller decision is incredibly vague. Does that refer to full-auto rifles? Maybe, maybe not.”

          People bitch about SCotUS rulings being vague, bit it’s that way for a very good *reason*.

          Making it hyper-specific runs the danger of skirting the new ruling. Example – The ’94 AWB. Listed all kinds of guns by make and model. The makers skirted the law by designing new ones. *Poof* – Now legal.

          What I suspect they will pull is eventually putting all semi-autos on the NFA…

        • Grosjean v. American Press Co. should have made the NFA defunct. The Congressional record explicitly says they created the punitive tax, rather than a ban, because they knew these items were constitutionally protected. Grosjean v. American Press Co. explicitly and clearly rejected the idea of taxes on enumerated rights being constitutional.

          The NFA however is protected by a blatant show trial, which denied the defendant his choice of plea and choice of attorney (being forced to take an attorney who had a vested interest in his failure) by a judge responsible for writing the law.

        • “Grosjean v. American Press Co. explicitly and clearly rejected the idea of taxes on enumerated rights being constitutional.”

          Damn straight, it’s nothing more than a Jim crow era poll tax.

          We may have a serious shot at getting the NFA tax declared unconstitutional.

          The extensive background check? If we’re forced to go through that, they can damn sure make the wait time a whole lot shorter, say 90 days max. We have these newfangled machines now called digital computers that can make sorting masses of data a quick job…

          I still won’t like it, but waiting 90 days compared to a year or more is at least tolerable…

      • Should the SC grant cert and uphold the bump stock issue making them illegal, the next thing the left will attempt is to make semiauto guns of any kind illegal. They will certainly argue that since there is no difference between semiauto and bump stock, that semiauto should be banned too. The differences between semiauto, bump stock and full auto must be maintained if a happy ending is desired.

        • “…the next thing the left will attempt is to make semiauto guns of any kind illegal.”

          No need, putting them on the NFA accomplishes more for them, a far stricter universal registry…

    • Pretty much what we need to constantly remind people with the NY carry drama. TRO issued and could carry again Tuesday/Wednesday. State appeals and one 2nd circuit judge stayed the TRO pending a 3 judge hearing (back to a few streets for now) basically they are just trying to run the clock and hope there are new judges in their favor later but the sheer number of current lawsuits is not in their favor currently.

      • “…the sheer number of current lawsuits is not in their favor currently.”

        That’s our greatest strength, IMO. Good old-fashioned lawfare. Bury the enemy in mountains of paperwork they must read…

      • “The TRO enjoining the state gun control laws has been stayed, meaning the gun control laws are allowed to exist for the moment, pending the assignment of this case to a 3-judge panel, which is happening literally any minute,” according to Mark.

        He says chill out…

        • Why the stay? If the law is unconstitutional, then rights are being violated by allowing the law to go into effect with the stay, pending appeal.

        • Mark N, it seems a “stay’ is the way the court can halt overreach by the defendants in matters such as this pending a full hearing of the matter before the court. A TRO is the belief of the Court that the plaintiffs in the pending case will most likely prevail.

        • Mark, Welcome to NY for the short answer with a bit of because they can for the intro to the longer answer. Attrition is their best defense at the moment so any and every straw that can be grasped at or strawman argument made to delay losing will be used for everything we bring against them.

  2. Because of its roots in racism and genocide Gun Control like Slavery should have been abolished and stupid criminal control enacted….case closed.

  3. ABC News knows what they’re doing.
    Everything they agree with has to be “upheld” so that if and when it is killed they can refer to the decision as “radical” and “contrary to previous rulings.”

    Correction, maybe they aren’t so devious. Maybe they’re just idiots. But so are their readers and most of the public, myself not excluded, so the result is the same.

    • Damnit fake dacian had me going till a bit of the end of the first paragraph and the second one for obvious reasons but getting a lot better with the initial hook.

        • Copy and paste just about anything he ever posted in the middle of the two paragraphs and it could sneak right by

        • Then I would pray for him to find peace in the troubled hell that must be especially if he was cognizant of the decline into decomp.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead. Sorry ole boy, but you are wrong yet again. The Supreme Court often refuses to hear a case there there aren’t any other cases which conflict with one another.
      ABC is a Leftist-Socialist cabal party. What they say should be taken with a large grain of salt as with most of what you say.

  4. SCOTUS is not dumb for declining to hear certain cases. The judges are very keen on projecting how a decision will effect laws in a big picture manner rather than just the unique situation of a case even though it may seem simple to most of us. I hope they are waiting for a case that will settle not just ATF issues but the federal gov’t in general regarding over-reach.

    • isn’t that EPA Chevron doctrine case out there still, perhaps if that limits the executive bureaucracy’s ability to rule by their supposed expertise, maybe some of these will click into place.

    • Rand,

      Particularly Thomas. He doesn’t WANT to take every 2A case, he wants to take the 2A cases that give him the scope, and unassailable factual basis, to make meaningful rulings, ala Bruen. I think the remand of cases like the Benitez opinions from CA, etc., was the gauntlet being thrown to the Ninth Circus – “Go ahead, boys! F*** around and find out!!” As someone upthread mentioned, I think Thomas’ ultimate goal is to either overturn, or sufficiently reinterpret, Miller to effectively undo the NFA. He has made his position on the 2A abundantly clear over the years. He may not be a 2A absolutist, but he’s the best hope the gun community has on SCOTUS.

      • “…I think Thomas’ ultimate goal is to either overturn, or sufficiently reinterpret, Miller to effectively undo the NFA.”

        I *really* want him to go there, but doubt he will, see my comment above on ‘Heller’ and what Scalia said in that decision.

        It simply isn’t a good idea to have angry nut-job Leftist Scum ™ freaks walking into gun stores and walking out with machine guns. The vetting process seems to be working, as annoying as it is. It can damn sure be streamlined to take no longer 90 days, for example…

      • I think Thomas’ ultimate goal is to either overturn, or sufficiently reinterpret, Miller to effectively undo the NFA.
        Not a lawyer, but from what I’ve read regarding Miller and NFA, SCOTUS ruled that the NFA restricting SBS’s were “OK” because SBS’s were NOT part of the standard issue weaponry provided to a military. In that context, no reinterpretation should be required as MGs, suppressors, SBRs are (now) part of the standard issue weapons packages provided by .GOV to the military.

        • re: SBS

          Which was a blatant lie on the part of SCOTUS. SBS’s were in use in W.W. I, which ended just 11 years prior, and precedent in the U.S. went all the way back to the Revolutionary War where George Washington advocated heavily for the very similar ancestor of them, the blunderbuss.

  5. An old trick of the gangsters on the Supreme Court is to ban guns without actually ruling on a case and letting the lower court rulings stand so they do not have to take the heat.

    Bump stocks are now banned and there is less than a 1 in a million chance the Supreme Court will hear another case on legalizing them. To do so would open the door to legalizing machine guns which no court in their right mind would want to happen. Nor would any court want maniacs mowing down people in crowds with the use of bump stock as Paddock did at Los Vegas. 800 people were wounded and crippled horribly and 60 some murdered by Paddock with a bump stock equipped weapon and it took only seconds as a rain of deadly high power rifle fire rained down upon them. The rivers of blood and the screams and agony of the victims will haunt all the people who were there for the rest of their lives.

    No court, and no sane people would ever want bump stocks legalized. They are an extreme danger to all people. Anyone who would argue otherwise is a prime candidate for the looney bin which is where the Far Right live and howl in the night.

    • Here’s a clue for the clueless lil’dtard.

      With a decisive SC ruling on the NFA act of 1934, all the ‘Chevron Deference’ BS the ATF likes to play become totally null and void.

      See how that works moron?

      🤔
      Hey, that’s my new nicknames for you and whiner………..Null and Void. 🤣

    • You are incredibly poorly educated. And an idiot. But you do you. You are one of the best weapons we have in this fight. You’re just too damaged to know it.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead, I have some very bad news for you. There are at least three other cases concerning bump stocks pending in other courts. When those cases are heard in light of the Bruen Decision, there just may be conflict between the different Appellate Courts. When that happens it is the responsibility of SCOTUS to render a decision to straighten out the conflicting decisions.
      I’ll put is another way. Don’t count your chickens before thy hatch?

    • @dacian

      Aside from the rest of your post not having any grounding in logic or reality…this…

      “To do so would open the door to legalizing machine guns which no court in their right mind would want to happen.”

      100% false.

      Bump stocks and actual machine guns are two different things.

    • Zero proof have been given that he used any of the bump stock rifles…They were all sitting on the bed with bipods…

      And two windows were broken, not one, tells me two shooters!!!!

      • Witness statements also said muzzle flashes were visible at BOTH broken windows simultaneously.
        One shooter? 🤔

  6. I used to have a NM M1A with proper application of the trigger finger, you would of thought it was a bump stock.
    Miss that rifle.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here