Update to
Cargill v Garland (ATF bump stock ban) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12731477
- Supreme Court has distributed all three cases for conference on October 27
- By the end of the month, Supreme Court will decide to grant or deny review of all three cases (Or conference rescheduled for another date)
- Supreme Court could grant review of all three cases or decide to review only one case and if that's the case, Cargill case may likely be the case to be reviewed
US Supreme Court agrees to hear New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) case aginst ATF's unilateral bump-stock ban -
https://nclalegal.org/2023/11/u-s-s...case-against-atfs-unilateral-bump-stock-ban/\
For the third time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in one of the New Civil Liberties Alliance’s cases. Today, the Court granted the government’s request for a writ of certiorari in NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban. NCLA supported the Solicitor General’s request in Garland v. Cargill and eagerly accepts this invitation. We will ask the Justices to affirm the en banc ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that ATF’s regulatory ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”
ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits. That rule reversed ATF’s long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns. The rule required NCLA’s client, Austin, Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill—and half a million other Americans—to either destroy or turn in legally purchased bump stocks.
In January, the
en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ruled in
Cargill v. Garland that banning bump stocks requires an act of Congress, a major victory for NCLA. That ruling agrees with a subsequent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and an earlier one from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, but it conflicts with Tenth Circuit and D.C. Circuit decisions rejecting challenges to ATF’s Final Rule.
The Constitution provides that only Congress may enact new criminal laws. Congress adopted a statute banning machine guns in 1986 that did not mention bump stocks. ATF is not authorized to issue legislative rules, let alone to draft regulations expanding the reach of criminal laws beyond the scope of what Congress prohibited, thereby turning half a million Americans into felons overnight. NCLA is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that bump stocks are not machine guns, thus safeguarding Americans’ rights against administrative agency power grabs.
Garland v. Cargill will be NCLA’s fourth case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in under 2 years. The Justices unanimously held in April 2023 that NCLA client
Michelle Cochran had the right to challenge the constitutionality of her ALJ’s removal protections in federal court
before undergoing an administrative adjudication. On October 13, the Court granted cert in NCLA’s
Relentless, Inc., et al. v. Department of Commerce challenge to the
Chevron doctrine, with oral arguments set for January 2024. A week later, the Justices agreed to hear the government’s challenge to the preliminary injunction in NCLA’s
Missouri v. Biden case that would bar various federal government officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. NCLA has successfully battled the Administrative State for six years. As these cases show, we will fight all the way to the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties from federal agencies’ attacks.
NCLA released the following statements:
“NCLA is pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our challenge to ATF’s unlawful expansion of the statutory definition of a ‘machinegun.’ As we told the Court in urging it to grant review and affirm the appeals court’s decision, ATF for many years recognized that bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic weapons are not ‘machineguns.’ Its sudden reversal can only be explained as a decision to allow political expediency to trump the rule of law.”
— Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“This is not a case about gun rights. It is a case about administrative power. Congress never gave ATF the power to rewrite federal criminal statutes pertaining to machine guns—nor could it. Writing federal criminal laws is the sole preserve of Congress, and the Trump and Biden Administrations committed grievous constitutional error by trying to ban bump stocks without involving Congress. We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong for Michael Cargill and all Americans.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, NCLA
For more information visit the case page here and watch the case video here.
Ex FPC attorney discuss status of bump stock cases
In this video I break down the amazing news that the Supreme Court has granted review to a new firearms case!BlackoutCoffee: https://www.blackoutcoffee.com/a...
www.youtube.com
