GOA Alert: VICTORY: COURT RULES A BUMP STOCK IS NOT A MACHINE GUN

[ArmyVet]

https://www.gunowners.org/victory-co...a-machine-gun/

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opi...1a0070p-06.pdf

[Walleye Hunter]

That's good to hear.

[Justin///M]

Someone clarify. Are they legal yet?

[internet troll]

From the decision, this is what we need more of. Hopefully most of the federal Judges Trump appointed follow this philosophy better than Trump and the ATF did when they decided bump stocks were machine guns.

But as judges, we cannot amend § 5845(b). See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1726 (2017) (*[T]he proper role of the judiciary . . . [is] to apply, not amend, the work of the People*s representatives.*). And neither can the ATF. See Dodson, 519 F. App*x at 349 (*The ATF does not have the ability to redefine or create exceptions to Congressional statutes.*). This is because the separation of powers requires that any legislation pass through the legislature, no matter how well-intentioned or widely supported the policy might be. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983) (*Amendment and repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.*). To allow otherwise would put individual liberty at serious risk. Id. at 950 (citing THE FEDERALIST NO. 51 (James Madison or Alexander Hamilton)).
In sum, based on the text and context of § 5845(b), and further supported by the Supreme Court*s interpretation in Staples, we conclude that the phrase *the single function of the trigger* refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, not the shooter*s pulling of the trigger. Consequently, a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845

[vfinnell]

Yes, the news came in earlier today. Glad it got posted here. Thanks.

[gnbrotz]

Someone clarify. Are they legal yet?

My interpretation is that the matter is far from complete. A preliminary injunction was originally sought and denied ("Don't make them illegal until the court makes a final judgement.")

THAT decision was struck down, so best case, the injunction will be issued to keep them legal (or make them legal again) until the full legal battle is complete, so my non-lawyer answer to your question, is:

Yes, for now, but only after the lower court takes the action it has been ordered to - ie - issuing the injunction.

IANAL

[lager1829]

Someone clarify. Are they legal yet?

Please. I may need to go fishing in the lake.....

[Justin///M]

From the decision, this is what we need more of. Hopefully most of the federal Judges Trump appointed follow this philosophy better than Trump and the ATF did when they decided bump stocks were machine guns.

But as judges, we cannot amend § 5845(b). See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1718, 1726 (2017) (*[T]he proper role of the judiciary . . . [is] to apply, not amend, the work of the People*s representatives.*). And neither can the ATF. See Dodson, 519 F. App*x at 349 (*The ATF does not have the ability to redefine or create exceptions to Congressional statutes.*). This is because the separation of powers requires that any legislation pass through the legislature, no matter how well-intentioned or widely supported the policy might be. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983) (*Amendment and repeal of statutes, no less than enactment, must conform with Art. I.*). To allow otherwise would put individual liberty at serious risk. Id. at 950 (citing THE FEDERALIST NO. 51 (James Madison or Alexander Hamilton)).
In sum, based on the text and context of § 5845(b), and further supported by the Supreme Court*s interpretation in Staples, we conclude that the phrase *the single function of the trigger* refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, not the shooter*s pulling of the trigger. Consequently, a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845

I came to post that and other relevant info.


I'm thinking NO, we can't just assume they're legal across the land yet.


"However, we do not decide the scope of the injunction, except to say that the scope may
not exceed the bounds of the four states within the Sixth Circuit*s jurisdiction and, of course,
encompasses the parties themselves. Though we disagree with the ATF*s position, the ATF
prevailed before the Tenth Circuit, as well as the D.C. Circuit Court, from which decision the
Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Guedes, 920 F.3d at 6, cert. denied 140 S. Ct. 789 (2020).
If we were to permit a universal injunction (also frequently called a *nationwide injunction*), we
would create an absurd situation in which the ATF must prevail in every single case brought
against the Final Rule in order for its interpretation to prevail. We do not think that it is within
our authority to overrule the decision of a sister circuit (or for a district court within our circuit to
do so). See Nixon, 76 F.3d at 1388 (holding that we are not bound by *the views of our sister
circuits*). "

[Justin///M]

My interpretation is that the matter is far from complete. A preliminary injunction was originally sought and denied ("Don't make them illegal until the court makes a final judgement.")

THAT decision was struck down, so best case, the injunction will be issued to keep them legal (or make them legal again) until the full legal battle is complete, so my non-lawyer answer to your question, is:

Yes, for now, but only after the lower court takes the action it has been ordered to - ie - issuing the injunction.

IANAL

Yep an it appears it would be only for the 6th circuit.

[Emptymag]

Someone clarify. Are they legal yet?

Imma write a letter to the ATF and axe 'em...