National 5th District puts down Federal bump stock ban

[Yarome]

The 5th circuit has put down the federal bump stock ban as a violation of the government administrative procedural act. This could also be great news against the upcoming pistol brace rule.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...3045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf

Read More

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The 5th circuit has put down the federal bump stock ban as a violation of the government administrative procedural act. This could also be great news against the upcoming pistol brace rule.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...3045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf

That judge is excellent. Took the time to actually understand the issues and rules based on what the law actually says, not a personally biased interpretation of what it "might" say. In the words of R Lee Ermy in full metal jacket, "Out F...ing Standing!"

Immergut is an example of the complete opposite of this. She is trying to force her own anti-gun prejudgement into the law despite being told to do the opposite by SCOTUS (i.e. don't use 2 part balancing test, did not use historical tradition, did not consider that magazines are inseparable from "arms", can't put burden on citizens to show a "need" for self defense -ie they are in common use is all that is required, do not need to prove they are used for self defense). Immergut is going to get torn to shreds when this reaches Scotus. She is so blatantly wrong on so many points of law that it absolutely has to be intentional IMO. I think she is doing the beck and call of the CA 9th circuit which is rabidly anti-gun.

 

[kmk1012]

When will the stocks be back on the shelves?

 

[Yarome]

That judge is excellent. Took the time to actually understand the issues and rules based on what the law actually says, not a personally biased interpretation of what it "might" say. In the words of R Lee Ermy in full metal jacket, "Out F...ing Standing!"

Yeah. It wasn't even a close call with a 13-3 vote. It can still be appealed, but that would mean taking it to SCOTUS and you have to wonder if that would be hardly a wise move to make. It's pretty evident SCOTUS would chew it up and shat it out... if they even decided to take it up or not.

It lays the framework though against the pistol brace rule and has to have the alphabets rethinking about actually dropping it or not now. I dunno if this last delay had anything to do with the bump stock ban decision, but makes you wonder if it did. If they can't get away with the bump stocks, the pistol brace rule is on some pretty shaky ground.... with 10's of millions of them in common use and all.

Dumber things have happened, but its nice to dream.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Yeah. It wasn't even a close call with a 13-3 vote. It can still be appealed, but that would mean taking it to SCOTUS and you have to wonder if that would be hardly a wise move to make. It's pretty evident SCOTUS would chew it up and shat it out... if they even decided to take it up or not.

It lays the framework though against the pistol brace rule and has to have the alphabets rethinking about actually dropping it or not now. I dunno if this last delay had anything to do with the bump stock ban decision, but makes you wonder if it did. If they can't get away with the bump stocks, the pistol brace rule is on some pretty shaky ground.... with 10's of millions of them in common use and all.

Dumber things have happened, but its nice to dream.

I didn't read the whole thing, did the judge go into common use? I read most of the first part (Or what I assume was the first part) having to do with the function of the trigger, why a bump stock is not a machine gun, how other judges cocked it up, etc.) My first thought after reading it was FRT has pretty much the same argument as bump stocks. It's another brick in the wall of precedent for the second amendment fortress, that's for sure.

Braces are an interesting one for sure. My gut feel is the one thing that will bite ATF is the separation of powers/over-reach issue. They are attempting to redefine what a rifle is based on what you attach to a pistol. Kind of like redefining a dog as a cat if it's wearing a doggie sweater with a cat logo on it. Similar to this bump stock ruling (where the definition of machine gun was made by congress as single function of the trigger), it would be an overreach IMO for ATF to redefine a rifle because that definition that was made by Congress, not ATF.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Annoying (video reminds me of Jack Birdbath guy on patriot show) but informative video on it here. Rule of Lemity (sp?) stuff is helpful info.

 

[kmk1012]

Annoying (video reminds me of Jack Birdbath guy on patriot show) but informative video on it here. Rule of Lemity (sp?) stuff is helpful ifo.

Says video unavailable

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Says video unavailable

Thanks! I posted a different link. Hopefully it works now.

 

[GrayGoose]

Good, but I still have no desire for a stupid bump-stock.

 

[Caveman Jim]

It's completely asinine for TPTB to make a decision based on the actions of another, no mater what party instigated it.

 

[Alexx1401]

Good, but I still have no desire for a stupid bump-stock.

They never were real high on my "want list" but, I would love to see them lose. The reason we keep taking it in the shorts is so many gun owners who don't care about laws that they think do not effect them. Then when they finally get around to laws that effect something they own they are of course angry.

 

[GrayGoose]

They never were real high on my "want list" but, I would love to see them lose. The reason we keep taking it in the shorts is so many gun owners who don't care about laws that they think do not effect them. Then when they finally get around to laws that effect something they own they are of course angry.

Agreed. Although I don't care much for bumpstocks, I still see their ban an infringement on my right to have one if I wanted it. So I hope this goes down faster than Kamela at a DNC convention.

 

[Hueco]

That judge is excellent. Took the time to actually understand the issues and rules based on what the law actually says, not a personally biased interpretation of what it "might" say. In the words of R Lee Ermy in full metal jacket, "Out F...ing Standing!"

Immergut is an example of the complete opposite of this. She is trying to force her own anti-gun prejudgement into the law despite being told to do the opposite by SCOTUS (i.e. don't use 2 part balancing test, did not use historical tradition, did not consider that magazines are inseparable from "arms", can't put burden on citizens to show a "need" for self defense -ie they are in common use is all that is required, do not need to prove they are used for self defense). Immergut is going to get torn to shreds when this reaches Scotus. She is so blatantly wrong on so many points of law that it absolutely has to be intentional IMO. I think she is doing the beck and call of the CA 9th circuit which is rabidly anti-gun.

Makes you wonder…

If I did the absolute opposite of what was asked of me by my superiors at work, and some mistake went all the way up the food chain, it would end in my being let go no questions asked.

Seems to me we should be looking to impeach some judges as all these cases go up and SCOTUS starts handing out rebukes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Makes you wonder…

If I did the absolute opposite of what was asked of me by my superiors at work, and some mistake went all the way up the food chain, it would end in my being let go no questions asked.

Seems to me we should be looking to impeach some judges as all these cases go up and SCOTUS starts handing out rebukes.

Totally agree. One dynamic I find interesting is we have certain folks in 3 layers of gov basically saying "F you" to SCOTUS: 1) Fed judges like immergut in OR - judicial branch 2) federal agencies like ATF - executive branch; 3) legislators passing laws they know are unconstitutional - legislative branch.

We know legislators can't be disciplined for such action other than voting them out, but the other 2 it seems like they should get hammered for what they are doing. ATF especially is likely to get slapped down in the wake of the recent EPA overeach ruling from SCOTUS, Bruen, and rulings like this bump stock one from the 5th circuit. I think that these cases are building up, setting quite a solid precedent that is going to finally start eroding ATF's gross overeach and arbitrary rulings made on the whim of the sitting president's desires, not on the rule of law as found in the constitution.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[GrayGoose]

View attachment 1341798

I'll bet anyone who gave up or destroyed their bump-stocks feels dumb now!

 

[po18guy]

Gun control is like cancer. Cancer cells always begin as normal cells, then slowly mutate into clones of each other. From benign, they progress to indolent (slow growing) to from indolent to aggressive - life threatening. First came serial number requirements, dealer licensing and federal regstration ("Oh no!" they said, with lips moving), but purchases were not limited. Then came multi purchase limits. Further metasticising, it was the dreaded "assault weapons" (Anti-Tryanny Weapons) ban, and then onto braces, bump stocks, hi-caps. Then licensing, permitting and denial power. Constitution therapy is the only cure.

But cancer often relapses.

 

[Yarome]

I'll bet anyone who gave up or destroyed their bump-stocks feels dumb now!

It does give them all a chance at a class action though to recoup losses from the gooberment. Make em pay for unlawful seizure/forfeiture. Kind of sucks that it would be at the additional expense of the taxpayers, but if there is no cost to the agencies it is doomed to be repeated.

Besides... they just got a 14% budget increase from the omnibill. Might as well give it back to the people!!

 

[Yarome]

WGL did a break down and blurb on the 5th district ruling. Pointing out some of the juicy tidbits that is likely to have future impact on the other overreaches (80%'s, FRT's, Pistol braces).

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Yeah. It wasn't even a close call with a 13-3 vote. It can still be appealed, but that would mean taking it to SCOTUS and you have to wonder if that would be hardly a wise move to make. It's pretty evident SCOTUS would chew it up and shat it out... if they even decided to take it up or not.

It lays the framework though against the pistol brace rule and has to have the alphabets rethinking about actually dropping it or not now. I dunno if this last delay had anything to do with the bump stock ban decision, but makes you wonder if it did. If they can't get away with the bump stocks, the pistol brace rule is on some pretty shaky ground.... with 10's of millions of them in common use and all.

Dumber things have happened, but its nice to dream.

I'm pretty sure they won't let this act as a deterrent to their brace rule. If they've proved anything, it's that they'll ignore court rulings and push through anything they can even knowing it'll be struck down at some point.

They were riding high and had the notion that their gun control dreams were within their grasp, but the recent handful of court rulings going in favor of the 2nd amendment has them seeing red. And, just like overly emotional children or cornered animals, they're going to lash out to make us pay for it regardless of the cost. That's what it's all about for them at this point; punishing us for their misguided beliefs. They're not stupid enough to believe that all the gun laws and rule makings/updates they are trying to push that run counter to recent court rulings are going to stand up to judicial scrutiny. They're only doing it to inflict maximum inconvenience on us evil gun owners.