LiveLife
Member
Repost from 4/28/23 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12614023
In January of 2023, 5th Circuit ruled against ATF on Cargill v Garland bump stocks case where ATF violated APA requirements - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...hat-congress-not-atf-declares-what-the-law-is
"... The APA specifically sets forth standards by which courts must review agency actions—arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority, and so on ... The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for Cargill." - https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
Now 6th Circuit ruled in Hardin v ATF (ATF bump stock ban) that ATF went beyond its legal authority when it banned bump stocks by classifying them as "machine gun" parts in 2017 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...es-against-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-25/
In January of 2023, 5th Circuit ruled against ATF on Cargill v Garland bump stocks case where ATF violated APA requirements - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...hat-congress-not-atf-declares-what-the-law-is
"... The APA specifically sets forth standards by which courts must review agency actions—arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority, and so on ... The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for Cargill." - https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
Now 6th Circuit ruled in Hardin v ATF (ATF bump stock ban) that ATF went beyond its legal authority when it banned bump stocks by classifying them as "machine gun" parts in 2017 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...es-against-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-25/
- 6th Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman ... 1934 law must be interpreted according to the "rule of lenity," which requires ambiguity in a criminal statute to be resolved in criminal defendants' favor.
- "Because the relevant statutory scheme does not clearly and unambiguously prohibit bump stocks, we are bound to construe the statute in Hardin's favor,"
- Judge David McKeague joined in the opinion and judge John Bush concurred ... federal law was not ambiguous and clearly did not cover bump stocks.