Dump the Trump Bump Ban?

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...3045236/Cargill_v_Garland_En_Banc_Opinion.pdf

This for real? Court says it violates Administrative Procedures Act.

A blow to a major part of his legacy!

Sorry if someone already posted this.

 

The plaintiff in the case is Michael Cargill, a small independent gun shop owner in Austin, Texas. He has been very active in Second Amendment issues locally and on the state level.
Good to see this!

 

It appears that it is for real.

Opinion Search (uscourts.gov)

Searching for docket number 20-51016 at the 5th's website brings up the exact same document including the date stamp.

 

Synopsis? Don't like downloading PDF's.

Thank you for this heads up.

 

If this gets traction this could set precedence over braces I would think as well. The ATF has many approval letters out there stating the brace and shouldering said brace doesn’t change a pistol into an SBR.

 

And 80% pistols, as the behavior at issue in Cargill is exactly what ATF did there as well. Multiple letters confirming status, then a reversal based on politics. A regulatory agency taking over the role of making policy, rather than enforcing.

 

Congress has used "deference," a term that transfers the power of assumed law over to another agency that they feel is more qualified to make proper decisions about a topic.
In this case, they gave that power to the ATF and the ATF went bonkers with their newly found authority with little regard to our constitution.
It would be nice if the supreme court gave them a severe wake up call.

 

Yes, I believe it will.
Or should anyway.

 

Short synopsis in this article (someone with access can click the 13-3 link and get the document, I cannot):

Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban | Fox News

 

From the link in the OP

“He” would be right.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0

There is nothing in there about rate of fire, it’s about action or lack there of for subsequent shots. Why the springs in the Akins accelerator, AW-SIM and the like became a no go and the Slidefire was allowed.

He should be so lucky, probably the worst precedent a President has ever set, from a 2A standpoint. It could really be extended to all self loading firearms as they can all be bump fired without a cheap plastic stock.

 

I'm just amazed how the ATF can unilaterally within the span of a couple of months ban something make felons out of some people, and destroy businesses, but it takes several years to have their clear overreach corrected. The damage is done at that point with no compensation for those jailed, put out of business, lost money and property, etc.

 

This was a major stain on Trumps presidency.

 

Mark Smith's take on the nature of this en banc ruling, as well as what may lie ahead:

 

WGL has a great video on this as well

 

There's a subtle issue lurking here, too. ATFE has been in the habit of issuing "letters" which wind up having a presumption of having the Force of Law.
Which violates APA rather starkly.
Laws, and their enforcement, cannot be based on bureaucratic whim.

That this will likely kibosh the braces, and the "80%" situation is very likely--but, that's mere opinion on my part. The latest kerfuffle on Polymer 80s can be summarized as a one page "clarification" of the multipage 'definition' created out of just part of one sentence in 18 USC 922. (And is mostly a screed declaring that AFTE thinks Polymer80 and SureFire are Bad! Bad!)

 

I’m just amazed at the number of people that want the .gov even more powerful with even less oversight…

 

your right didn’t realize this was in Legal.

 

The ban was not found unconstitutional, just that ATF went off the track with regulation. Fed and state legislatures are still free to ban them and then a high court can decide if it’s passes the test.

 

Yes, the issue is with the ATF basically creating criminal laws that bypass state legislatures and Congress. They've gotten into the habit of using mental gymnastics to "interpret" and spin the simple plain text of the law into meaning what they want it to mean. They have a predetermined result they want to reach, and they then go about connecting dots and "reinterpreting" the law until they get to where they wanted to be all along.

No debate, no votes, no oversight, and no bills to read so we know the exact text of the law long before it becomes law. We just wake up one day when they finally decide to publish their "interpretations" and in the span of one day what was previously legal is now a felon. For example, we won't know what's exactly in the pistol braces reinterpretation until the day of. Then manufacturers, vendors, LGS, and everyone else will be left scrambling to comply.