ATF bump stock lawsuits

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congress could change the law and make bump stocks illegal ... Then someone would take the new law to court ... if bump stocks are protected by the 2A. That is the way things are supposed to work.
But the Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that "modern" arms like semi-auto firearms are protected by the Second Amendment and in Caetano expanded to include other "modern" types of arms/accessories (Adding "modern" accessories like red dot/fiber optic sight or scope to legal firearm does not make it illegal).

Cargill ruling said nothing about banning semi-auto firearm but stated adding accessory to legal semi-auto firearm (In this case bump stock but will also apply to pistol brace and forced reset trigger, etc. later) doesn't make it illegal regardless of resulting increased rate of fire - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12920825

Congress could have linked the definition of “machinegun” to a weapon’s rate of fire, as the dissent would prefer. But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically ... by a single function of the trigger.”​

And Supreme Court ruling and justice Alito's concurring opinion pointed out what Congress should focus/do and that is addressing executive branch/administrative agency exceeding statutory authority ... Not continuing to violate Second Amendment rights of minority gun owners.

ATF does not dispute that this complete process is what constitutes a “single function of the trigger.” ... For each shot, the shooter must engage the trigger and then release the trigger to allow it to reset. Any additional shot fired after one cycle is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock.​

ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.​

So no, I do not believe Congress will change the law to make bump stocks illegal as it will immediately be challenged. NY defied Bruen ruling and changed law only eight days after Bruen ruling but it was immediately challenged by five lawsuits and that challenge is back at the Supreme Court to be ruled along with Rahimi case after Monday - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-3#post-12922326
 
Last edited:
So when justice Alito wrote, "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns ... Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act", I read that to mean that since the Supreme Court clearly explained and ruled bump stocks are not machineguns according to what Congress wrote YET ATF chose to "exceed its authority", Congress can act on ATF exceeding statuary authority.
The clear implication is that Alito is OK, constitutionally, with Congress expanding the NFA to include bump stocks, without violating the 2nd Amendment. That's why I consider his statement to be an "invitation" for Congress to act accordingly.
 
The clear implication is that Alito is OK, constitutionally, with Congress expanding the NFA to include bump stocks, without violating the 2nd Amendment. That's why I consider his statement to be an "invitation" for Congress to act accordingly.
That maybe (We may have to ask justice Alito directly if that's what he meant) but even if that's the case, that would be one Supreme Court justice opinion and may not reflect the entire bench.

And majority opinion rules.

Let's see what Congress does in response ... That's what truly matters.
 
Last edited:
And to all those who are so compelled by Supreme Court's Cargill ruling, let your elected representatives in Congress know EXACTLY how you feel about executive branch/administrative agency continuing to exceed their separation of powers authority in not representing "We the People" and to stop violating Bill of Rights of minority.

Spread the word ... Cargill ruling is way more than just "useless" gun accessory ... more like reaffirmation of founding fathers' intent of separation of powers to prevent majority mob rule imposition on the rights of minority ... Which has happened many times in this young nation's short history and now rights of many minority groups are protected from the imposition of the majority.

This time, gun owners happened to be the latest minority group targeted/victimized by the majority. ;)
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many lawsuits will come from other people forced to turn in/destroy bump stocks to local LE? Will they be able to get restitution from said agencies or others? Mildly curious - I have never owned and am not likely to own a bump stock.
 
Supreme Court ruling in Cargill v Garland (ATF bump stock ban) now can affect other ATF cases by 28(j) letters and citing of Cargill ruling in lower courts - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12920825

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda now with CRPA discuss fallout of recent Supreme Court ruling:
  • Supreme Court ruling against ATF is significant because it's the first interpretation process that ruled ATF exceeded statutory authority
  • Ruling can affect other ATF related cases making their way through the judicial process dealing with ATF overreach (Pistol brace ban, unfinished frames and receiver, forced reset triggers, homemade suppressors, engaged in business restriction, Etc.) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/page-2#post-12921635
  • 28(j) letters (Specific type of letter) likely will notify the courts that are reviewing all these ATF cases of new authority and that new authority is the Supreme Court's decision in the Cargill case where the Supreme Court ruled ATF overstepped their authority when it came to bump stocks so for similar ATF overreach cases, courts strike down ATF overreach action
  • Moving forward, Cargill ruling will be cited in every single ATF case
 
Last edited:
It seems the Democrats are ready to ban these dangerous accessories
With Republican majority in the House, attempt to amend the law could backfire and go the other way as Cargill ruling was more about administrative agency exceeding statutory authority and Congress could "remedy" that overreach as mentioned in post #56 and 28(j) letters start flying. ;)
 
Last edited:
I know that there are a lot of senior citizen gun owners who are upset by the ruling, AND there are others who don't understand why anyone would want a bumpstocks even though they don't want to see them banned.

Newsflash:
  1. Not all guns and gun accessories are purchased for self-defense purposes. Many are purchased for entertainment purposes and for the novelty of it all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, although this fact it REALLY annoys some gun owners.
  2. It's not your ammo! If fellow gun owners want to shoot off THEIR ammo that they spent their HARD EARNED money on, what difference does it make? If you don't like it, then YOU don't do it with your ammo. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean everyone else can't.
  3. Law enforcement, military, legal NFA machine gun owners, and gun range patreons who rent have and shoot fully automatic firearms, respectively. I noticed that the Fudds some get annoyed and/or go negative when they see the aforementioned shooting fullauto, and no one bats an eye. Oddly enough, when they see a civilian who simply wants the experience of being able to do something that the government requires $10k+ or a whole bunch of other hoops and hurtles to legally do. Not everyone has a range in their vicinity that has machines gun rentals....
  4. This case at it's core had NOTHING to do to do with bumbstocks! It had to do with government overreach. The ATF, at the direction of Donald Antigun Trump, was creating law, and doing the job of Congress. This opened Pandora's Box and the floodgates for the antigun lobby and administrations to ban any and everything without any regard for Congress, voters, and public opinion. You might think bumbstocks are stupid and don't care or want to see them banned, but sooner or latter the ATF will get around to reclassifing and restricting all the FUDD guns you're personally found of. By then, it will be to late though. The proof of this phenomenon is that after bumbstocks were banned, they went after braces, certain triggers, and then private sales of firearms.
 
there are others who don't understand why anyone would want a bumpstocks even though they don't want to see them banned.

This case at it's core ... had to do with government overreach
Absolutely.

The Supreme Court ruling was about executive branch/administrative agency exceeding statutory authority of Congress to ban/limit lawful use of "modern" gun accessory. And believe me, there are many "modern" arms and gun accessories not just for adaptive purposes to aid those with visual issues (fiber optic/red dot sights, scopes, etc.) and ambi controls for left handed shooters, but also for sporting/competition, hunting and recreational purposes. (Not all free speech under First Amendment is serious non-fiction history/documentaries rather science fiction and comics too)

How that accessory is lawfully used by "We the People" is not relevant to the Supreme Court ruling but the fact that executive branch/administrative agency violated separation of powers is significant.
 
Update to Guedes v ATF (Bump stock ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12731477

On the heels of Supreme Court Cargill bump stock ruling, Guedes case now should be a slam dunk follow up - https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1222.html

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024​

FPC statement - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpcaf-statement-on-scotus-bump-stock-decision

... FPC and FPC Action Foundation filed the first challenge to the bump stock ban in December 2018 in a lawsuit now styled Guedes v. Garland, which made its way to the Supreme Court in 2019 on an emergency basis but was denied for being in an interlocutory posture. Guedes is now pending order of the Court on the merits (docket no. 22-1222) where it is likely to be granted, reversed, and remanded (“GVR’d”) following today’s decision. Importantly, the Court recently agreed to hear one of FPC’s cases in which it prevailed in the courts - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/supr...wsuit-challenging-atfs-frame-or-receiver-rule
FPC and FPCAF congratulate Mr. Cargill, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and all of the counsel for the petitioner on the significant victory.​
 
Last edited:
Update to Guedes v ATF (Bump stock ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/page-3#post-12923702

On the heels of Supreme Court Cargill bump stock ruling, Guedes case now should be a slam dunk follow up - https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1222.html

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024​
6/24/24 - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.​
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Garland v. Cargill

At 1:50 minute of video, ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss Supreme Court Guedes ruling:
  • We had some cases that went to the Supreme Court last week for conference. Those were the Guedes case and the Hardin case.
  • Guedes case was GVR'd which means it was granted, vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court back down to the DC circuit court for re-evaluation and re-review by the DC Court in light of what the Supreme Court said in their 6-3 Cargill decision so that's good news.
  • You have a case being remanded back down to the lower court to correct what they said in light of what the Supreme Court said in Cargill.
  • Another bump stock case pending in front of the Supreme Court was the Hardin case which was out of the 6th Circuit.
  • In the order list, the Supreme Court simply just denied review and just denied any action on that case. And that's primarily because the Hardin case in the 6th Circuit was ruled in favor of the pro 2A side.
  • Hardin decision in the 6th Circuit went against the ATF and struck down the bump stock ban and so simply the Supreme Court decided just to take no action on that and just leave the 6th Circuit decision in place. So again some good news.
  • I was expecting that they would also GVR the 6th Circuit case just for maybe some slight corrections in light of what they said in Cargill but they just simply decided not to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Update to Guedes v ATF (Bump stock ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/post-12929378


On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States​
Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge​
J U D G M E N T​
This cause came on to be heard on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. On consideration thereof, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment filed June 24, 2024, vacating this court’s August 9, 2022 judgment, and remanding with instructions to consider this case in light of Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), we hereby vacate the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and remand to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.​
The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.​
 
As long as they keep looking at the bump stock I guess my AR crank grip is safe from getting outlawed. LOL

 
As long as they keep looking at the bump stock I guess my AR crank grip is safe from getting outlawed. LOL

Nope, if things go wrong in Nov., that will be gone right along with the rifle you have it installed in.
 
if things go wrong in Nov., that will be gone right along with the rifle you have it installed in.
Hopefully "We the People" and Electoral College founders framed for this nation will prevail. Hopefully.
 
Adding to Cargill v Garland (ATF bump stock ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/post-12923349

Top 2A Lawyer Discusses Important Details About Second Amendment & ATF Cases ...

An excellent presentation by constitutional attorney Paul Clement discussing Rahimi and Bump Stock (Cargill) Supreme Court decisions from 2023-2024 term.​
0:00 Intro​
1:10 Comments on Rahimi​
4:20 Why This Is Different​
5:50 Cargill Case & ATF Overreach​
10:02 Thank You!​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top