bumpstock ban process

M855 projectiles do not fit under the definition of armor piercing because they do not have a core constructed ENTIRELY of iron or steel. There is a lead slug behind the steel penetrator, which excludes it from being AP and makes it handgun legal. Had ATF not backed away and used the 'sporting purposes' excuse, I would like to know what their "sound legal reasoning" would have been since only Congress and the president's signature can change a statute. Same thing with bump stocks which do not fit the statutory definition of a machinegun.

 

Lol. That pretty much sums up the Cold War too.

 

When the ATF can change the definitions of words and reverse their rulings to serve a political agenda, none of their rulings mean squat and nothing will be safe.
SC45-70

 

That's where the courts come into play.

 

Which is very complicated. The only evidence for bumpstocks at LV is pure hearsay. All of the links go back to each other, the media references itself on the topic. A number of reports conflate potential arms charges with arms present (further obfuscated with the whole "illegal ammunition manufacturing" side show).

We have zilch from LV Metro or any of the alphabet agencies on what was on scene, what was recovered, what was tested for being fired. And LVM is generally a good agency, not given to pumping out bilgewater.

So, all linkage of bumpstocks to LV is all political, not factual--not until facts are actually ever produced.

 

Having heard the audio of the gunfire that accompanied the Mandalay Bay video, I think it's self-evident that bumpstocks were used. I've not heard ANY evidence of full auto weapons. My brother-in-law is a ex Pathfinder Ranger, U. S. Army, who has been in about two dozen operations and has been up against full auto AK-47 armed enemy combatants. He's heard those recordings and said it sounded like AKs to him.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. The Mandalay incident was handled in a ham handed way that has obfuscated a lot of what hapoened, that's true .... but I also do believe in Occam's Razor, and that suggests the simplest explanation is the deceased shooter used the weapons at hand and that the bumpstock equipped weapons played a big role.

 

This official act of banning bump-fire stocks is wrong in a number of ways and is at the heart unconstitutional.
I am hopeful that this unjust action will be challenged and struck down.

For one, the bump-fire stock has, for all intents and purposes, been classified the same as a machine gun. However, the immanent piece of plastic is incapable of firing ammunition. Furthermore, it is incapable of firing more than one round of ammunition with one pull of the trigger.

The ruling is quoted as saying;

The rule concludes that bump-fire stocks, "slide-fire" devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics all fall within the prohibition on machine guns by allowing a "shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," and therefore, they are illegal under federal law.

In no way does this characterization meet the definition of a machine gun. In fact it adds new definitions to that of existing machine gun terminology. However for gun hating zealots it is but a small leap to rationalize why it should be so.

Furthermore, with this ruling the “people” have now lost the protection of the 5th amendment. If individuals are required to either destroy or surrender property to the “government” without due process and compensation, then the 5th amendment has just been abrogated. There has been no due process of law, just an edict issued by big brother.

The 5th amendment in part says;

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

With this precedent now made law (not by congress), what’s to stop the next infringement on yet another one of the bill of rights. We as a county are headed down a slippery slope and big brother is at the top and pushing hard.

And here in Nevada, with this ruling, Sissylack and his hordes will be emboldened and will decimate Nevada gun owners rights in the coming future.

I am saddened to see what this once great nation is becoming. Me, my brother, father, FIL, grandfather, uncles and many friends have served in our military; swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am hopeful that the tree of liberty will not have to pruned.

 

I've watched the videos multiple times and it seemed apparent to me that you could hear the cyclic rate speed up and slow down which is indicative of a bumpstock. They can sound distinctly different than a true FA which will maintain the cyclic rate and then as more lead is thrown slow down but remain fairly constant...while with a bumpfire you might hear the cyclic rate increase or decrease which has a direct relation to the forward pressure used on the rifle.

 

Let's assume that bump stocks were used in Las Vegas. Bad people do bad things all the time.

That, however, is not a reason to suspend Constitutional protections, make law by regulation, nor redefine an item improperly.

 

I finally got around to seeing if the GOA (Gun Owners of America) had finally filed the suit they promised and indeed they did, on 12/26/18.
For those interested this is the link to the filing.
https://gunowners.org/images//GOA_COMPLAINT-.pdf

 

Reading through it, there are several interesting statements such as this one that point to exhibits.

The FPC's page for their lawsuit includes the exhibits, but I can't find them anywhere for the GOA's lawsuit.

 

Good catch, I still haven’t had time read the GOA suit. On the topic of interesting exhibits. Jerry Miculek might want to be insuring his trigger finger, as it is part of exhibit 3 & 4 of the FPC suit. They may be coming for him with shears!

 

The Firearms Policy Coalition has also filed suit, and their initial argument is that the rulemaking process was not followed when acting AG Matthew G. Whitaker signed the final rule.

They argue that acting AG Whitaker was improperly designated as acting AG, and therefore does not have the authority to sign the final rule.

https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...me-Court-Attorneys-Goldstein-Russell-P-C.html

FPC, which owns a “bump-stock” device, seeks a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and declaratory relief preventing Matthew G. Whitaker from exercising any authority as Acting Attorney General, and preventing from going into effect the ATF’s Final Rule on “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (Docket No. ATF-2017R-22).​

The case and motion argue that Acting Attorney General Mathew Whitaker, who President Trump placed into the role after the resignation of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has no authority to issue the rule because the President failed to adhere to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal laws regarding succession and vacancies in the office.
​

FPC therefore has sidestepped the entire argument on whether bump stocks are or are not machine guns.

 

I have no idea what the legal implications may, or may not be, but some of you might. I suspect it’s much ado about nothing, hopefully I’m wrong.

I should also note this seems to have as much, maybe more, to do with the Atkins Accelerator as a bump stock.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/fo...ts-machinegun-ruling-political/#ixzz5fQ9YgsBv



Also the court has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday for oral arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction in that case. I’ve been told the GOA is hoping to hear back from their injunction by the end of the month.

 

This is my not shocked face. There are way too many people who have power over our lives who don't answer to anyone.

 

I've been wondering about this. I think I will start a separate thread because it's not quite the same question.

 

The Guedes case has been dismissed by a judge. Details to follow, but the judge says they failed to prove their case.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750747-BumpStockRuling.html

Edit: Looks like the Judge applied Chevron Deference. IIRC, there is a case before scotus about the bounds of Chevron and Auer deference...

 

How would someone show that compensation is not appropriate (or less appropriate than injunctive relief)? The ATF's midrange estimate is a $32 million cost for implementing this rule (presumably including the value of the individual bumpstocks that are lost by individuals). Is it not enough to show that an injunction costs nothing but moving forward and then reverting to current status costs somewhere around $30 million?

Do any of the lawsuits have a manufacturer as a plantif? The best argument I could see for injunctive vs compensatory relief would be "our business will fail and we won't be able to restart the business if the ruling is later reverted".

 

Well their is still hope for the GOA sought injunction, this was the FPC injunction, if I understood correctly.

 

I can’t say I know a single person that thought that.

Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand another Clinton wouldn’t have been any better though. Much less 2 more liberal, legislate from the bench, SCOTUS Justice’s.

You are 100% correct in that the GOP absolutely loves to kick the can down the road to keep “energized” voters. When they sell “us” out, it’s a tough pill to swallow for sure. The current POTUS isn’t the first self proclaimed “pro gun” POTUS to erode the 2nd Amendment though.

 

Got this in a email from FPC today.