Military court rules bump stocks not machine guns

At least there is still some sanity in the USA! Hopefully this will codify a precedent that the courts can use going forward.

Can military court decisions be used for precedent in civilian courts?

Dunross said:

Can military court decisions be used for precedent in civilian courts?

Click to expand...

I’ve never seen a military court case cited in a non-military court proceeding in any rulings I’ve read, especially since military courts are for military members violating military codes.

We have numerous Marine and Army facilities locally, any violations of State laws off the bases (from simple battery to homicides) are handled by the local prosecutors.

Stay safe.

Dunross said:

Can military court decisions be used for precedent in civilian courts?

Click to expand...

The answer is pretty much "No."

Military courts interpret military law, and military appellate courts issue rulings that are only binding on subordinate courts, which are only other military courts.

About the only way that you could see a military court decision become binding on civilian courts is if the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a COMA case and issued a ruling, but then it would be the resultant SCOTUS decision that would become binding on lower civilian courts.

Dunross said:

Can military court decisions be used for precedent in civilian courts?

Click to expand...

Prolly not...

But I'm not a lawyer

The Uniform Code of Military Justice and the military courts are totally separate from the civilian court system. Like mentioned, any military case would have to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court before it would have any possible effect on civilian court cases.

Good to know our military members can process these now.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Good to know our military members can process these now.

Click to expand...

Guessing that while this protects him and other military members from UCMJ charges that it doesn't give them carte blanche to disregard the current ban.

That's nice, and I'm glad the servicemember won in this one.

But as has been pointed out here, military courts are NOT part of the civilian judicial system.

Now, I'm NOT an attorney...military or civilian. But I have had *some* experience with the military judicial system and how things "overlap" with the civilian judicial system.

In a phrase..."they don't".

And this is pointed out as early as boot camp, likely for all those, colloquially known to us Squids as "sea lawyers", who otherwise like to go around saying things like "you can't do this because (reason)". Get arrested, charged, and tried in the civilian world for any number of things...DUI, assault, burglary, arson, domestic violence, murder, etc. and you'll soon find just exactly how legal it is for the military to levy charges and try you on the SAME things under the UCMJ. And a handful of other violations as well, unique to servicemembers.

Double jeopardy? Nope. Two entirely different judicial systems. The two don't mix.

How the military judicial system proceeds with respect to a servicemember who has been charged with something in the civilian world is a mix of several factors, however. Many times they wait until the civilian side is done and then decide whether or not they wish to prefer charges as well. Whether this happens or not is based on a lot of factors which may or may not have anything to do with the actual charges themselves. If the servicemember has a fairly poor service record overall, the military may simply administratively separate the individual from the service. Or they could take it to a General or Special Courts-Martial. Or anything in between.

Maybe the military charges won't have anything at all to do with the civilian charges, but be something related simply due to the impact the civilian legal system had on the individual. If the individual was arrested by the civilians, for example, and was UA (Unauthorized Absence, or AWOL as many know it) or missed ship's movement because they were unable to return to their military command, then they could be charged with UCMJ Art. 86 (AWOL) and 87 (missing ship's movement). They could also be charged with a violation of UCMJ Art. 134, the "catch-all" punitive article as we knew it. If there isn't another UCMJ Article to charge one with, this one likely as SOMETHING they can charge someone with.

NOTHING in the UCMJ can be challenged in the civilian courts. NOTHING in the civilian courts can be challenged in the military judicial system. The two simply do not mix.

This doesn't mean that the results in one system cannot influence the actions of the other system. If a person is acquitted of arson, murder, assault, etc. in the civilian court system, then the military judicial system will think twice before attempting the same charges. They, too, do not wish to lose a case against someone and the fact that an acquittal outcome happened in the civilian courts means that there was a pretty strong case FOR the defendant. But that's not at all like a "precedent" which carries legal weight. It absolutely does not.

Could still smoke a service member for possession of said item if it was on post in violation of a direct order. Smoking dope is legal a lot of places but still not in the service. Can't have all sorts of things in the barracks or even post housing. So, its not like they can go out and ignore the law as they will simply make it more clear on post now and you can't take it off post per fed law. Good that he didn't get sent to prison over it but I don't see this as being a gain for people in uniform.

Ohen Cepel said:

...... Smoking dope is legal a lot of places but still not in the service.....

Click to expand...

"Smoking dope" is illegal in every state and territory of the United States.
Whether a particular state has removed prohibitions under state law does not affect federal law in the least.


And Private Ali Akazahg better hope no one makes a phone call to ATF.

dogtown tom said:

"Smoking dope" is illegal in every state and territory of the United States.
Whether a particular state has removed prohibitions under state law does not affect federal law in the least.

Click to expand...

Correct, excellent point!
Hard to drive that into the head of a 20yr though when they see businesses selling it all over the place.

We have a real mess on our hands with that issue. When "leadership" does not enforce the rules/laws they start to lose authority quickly. Why pay attention to the rules/laws when they are selectively enforced. Not a good situation at all.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Good to know our military members can process these now.

Click to expand...

The Military Appellate Court did not rule that military members may possess "Bump Stocks."

The court only ruled that the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a member of the Navy or Marine Corps did not violate Articles 83, 107 and 134 of the UCMJ.

The court did not settle the issue of whether the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a member of the Army, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, or the military components of NOAA and USPHS violates UCMJ Articles 83, 107 and 134.

The court did not settle the issue of whether the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a military member violates the NFA.

When reading an Appellate Court decision, it's important to note the issue being decided, and the scope of the decision.

Still, curious how this military ruling "telegraphs" to civilian cases.

Well, for the UCMJ to involve civilians as defendants the court room means the civilian courts have been determined to have failed and cannot be further entrusted with their Constitutional authority to determine law as the process has been shown to be corrupted beyond repair.

Even the most academic discussion of this would require understanding there would be a major constitutional crisis and bumpstocks don't even rate on the scale of importance. It would be major magnitudes of extreme wholesale corruption of the likes of say, massive voter allot box stuffing, pharmaceutical fraud in conjunction with an enemy state, giving our enemies $85 Billion in military equipment, abandoning our people in an foreign country while importing hundreds of thousands of them unvetted, and threatening us with removing our jobs, freedom, and pursuit of happiness to gain their ends.

Naaaah, like that's ever gonna happen. This decision isn't going to anything for us. We really don't even need it to, the bumpstock ban was rescinded months ago, on the merits, and that is what Trump actually gave them - defective and unlawful grounds to attempt it. They fell for it and here we are.

WORRY ABOUT FORM 4999 and how they try to keep it a viable ban against AR pistols. The industry makes a lot more money from it.

Always remember this when comparing military vs.civilian.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice,,,
Is firmly based on the,,,
"Intent of the Law".

Civilian codes are bases on the
"Letter of the Law".

I have no idea whether this was a factor in this case,,,
But it's always the first thing that comes to my mind when I compare the two systems.

Letter of the law always allows the fuzzy thinking,,,
Like when Clinton was asked "Did you have sex with that woman?"

His reply was "Define sex."

An Intent of the law scenario would not have allowed that response.

It main flaw is that it relies on benign jurists,,,
Even in military courts that is often a rare situation.

Just my (not so) humble opinion.

Aarond

.

RickD427 said:

The Military Appellate Court did not rule that military members may possess "Bump Stocks."

The court only ruled that the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a member of the Navy or Marine Corps did not violate Articles 83, 107 and 134 of the UCMJ.

The court did not settle the issue of whether the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a member of the Army, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, or the military components of NOAA and USPHS violates UCMJ Articles 83, 107 and 134.

The court did not settle the issue of whether the possession of a "Bump Stock" by a military member violates the NFA.

When reading an Appellate Court decision, it's important to note the issue being decided, and the scope of the decision.

Click to expand...

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.

LiveLife said:

Still, curious how this military ruling "telegraphs" to civilian cases.

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

aarondhgraham said:

Always remember this when comparing military vs.civilian.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice,,,
Is firmly based on the,,,
"Intent of the Law".

Civilian codes are bases on the
"Letter of the Law".

Click to expand...

I'm curious to know where you get this about the UCMJ.

The UCMJ is very much about the "letter of the law". You can't codify these things without it.

In fact, if you look at the UCMJ, it's quite explicit from exactly who, and under what circumstances, the UCMJ applies to (Chapter 47, Subchapter I, Section 802), to the punitive articles in Subchapter X, to the appeals process in Subchapter XII.

For a punitive article, let's choose Article 86 (Absent Without Leave) as an example, as it's one most people think of with respect to the military:

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

When someone is "placed on report" for a violation of an article of the UCMJ (form DD458), the Charges and Specifications section has to contain the exact details for the violation in question. More, those details must clearly state WHICH essential elements of the punitive article were violated and how. (Essential elements are, in the example above, are the three enumerated details which describe what is required to be charged with a violation of Article 86.)

If the individual being charged with Article 86 has not violated any of the three essential elements listed, then the person cannot be convicted of being AWOL. They are very specific.


Below is a link to the UCMJ, as well as an example form DD458, which is filled out for three violations (Art. 91, 112a, and 128).

https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/UCMJ - 20December2019.pdf?ver=2020-01-28-083235-930

https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites\...6B/$File/Appendix N - Sample Charge Sheet.pdf

In spite of the ruling having no presidential value in civilian courts it might still have value in any legal challenge to the matter. The military court did an analysis on which it based the ruling. So the largest buyer, owner, operator of machine guns ruling might be empirical evidence in a civilian court. For example if the bump stock ban were to be challenged the military analysis might come into play.

UCMJ decisions about about zero, zip, nada influence on Federal law decided in District Courts.It's like trying to enforce Cuban boating regulations in Miami Harbor.

Its a non starter conversation for internet minutia. Don't waste the pixels in the face of other much more important political disasters ongoing as we speak.

1942bull said:

In spite of the ruling having no presidential value in civilian courts it might still have value in any legal challenge to the matter. The military court did an analysis on which it based the ruling. So the largest buyer, owner, operator of machine guns ruling might be empirical evidence in a civilian court. For example if the bump stock ban were to be challenged the military analysis might come into play.

Click to expand...

The military court ruling cannot be introduced as "evidence" in a civilian court to prove the matter of the military trial. It is quite possible for a plaintiff to follow the same trial strategy as was used in the military case and to use the same legal "Play Book" as was used in the military appeal. But a civilian court hearing a similar case is still free to accept, or reject, the arguments made. The only courts that are required to follow the ruling discussed here are Courts Martial of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Agreed. I know the ruling cannot be introduced in a civilian court. My intended point (poorly made) was to suggest that the analysis that led to the ruling, not the ruling, could be used to contest the ATF ban or prosecutions that stem from that ban. The analysis is empirical data that led to a ruling. I think the data could be used to argue that a bump stock does not convert a semi-auto firearm into an automatic. Maybe I got it wrong, but it is what I think as of now v

1942bull said:

Agreed. I know the ruling cannot be introduced in a civilian court. My intended point (poorly made) was to suggest that the analysis that led to the ruling, not the ruling, could be used to contest the ATF ban or prosecutions that stem from that ban. The analysis is empirical data that led to a ruling. I think the data could be used to argue that a bump stock does not convert a semi-auto firearm into an automatic. Maybe I got it wrong, but it is what I think as of now v

Click to expand...

I have to think that the analysis is different from empircal data, but I think the rest of your comments are very much on point. The arguments made is this case can do a good job of setting a path for others to follow. But the key point remains that the path is only there for others to follow. The military ruling doesn't create a condition where other courts (except for Navy and Marine Courts Martial) have to follow that path.

1942bull said:

Agreed. I know the ruling cannot be introduced in a civilian court. My intended point (poorly made) was to suggest that the analysis that led to the ruling, not the ruling, could be used to contest the ATF ban or prosecutions that stem from that ban. The analysis is empirical data that led to a ruling. I think the data could be used to argue that a bump stock does not convert a semi-auto firearm into an automatic. Maybe I got it wrong, but it is what I think as of now v

Click to expand...

The whole string of logic would have to be recreated, and would be bound by the way the civilian laws are written.

And therein lies the problem. The line of reasoning has to stand on its own in civilian courts under civilian laws and all the legal definitions therein.

The problem is that civilian laws on this matter make their own definitions on what constitutes a certain type of firearm. And the politicians KNOW this, and they gleefully get away with it.

This means you have to attack the very foundation of the laws themselves, which (correct me if I'm wrong here, all you actual attorneys) is not the purview of the lower courts. This would be fought on appeal in the higher courts.

What the military defines as an assault weapon, for example, is not what the various civilian laws define as an assault weapon.

If you get charged in the civilian world, the charges are written up based on what the civilian laws say is illegal.