Trump orders bump stock ban

[Grey]

The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is published. I have not yet had time to read it.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...k-type-devices

The sky has not yet fallen. This is just the first formal step. It's exactly the same step that was taken a few years ago when Obama proposed banning M855/SS109, and that didn't happen. So this doesn't have to happen, either.

In that case, John Cornyn was in charge of the committee that controlled the money, and met with the BATFE and said, essentially, "Gosh, it sure would be nice if we could actually support your mission." And the ban didn't happen.

It is still important to submit comments through the correct process, as well as lean on your representation to lean on the executive branch.

It's also a different environment than the M855 period, so let's not make any false comparisons. Not saying you are but people shouldn't be lulled into complacency.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[cclaxton]

I would like to get something in return for this ban. I don't care about bump stocks, but I do care about a lot of other stupid gun restrictions.
Cody

[OlongJohnson]

Unfortunately, rule making doesn't work that way. There's no horse trading like on the legislative side.

[OlongJohnson]

I won't have time to dig into details until tonight, but talk amongst yourselves...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-stock-ruling/

"ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling"

Hopefully some of the lawyers on the board can tell us what this really means.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's a stripped down version of the NCLA claims...

https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-ad...stocks-anyway/

[ralph]

I won't have time to dig into details until tonight, but talk amongst yourselves...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-stock-ruling/

"ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling"

Hopefully some of the lawyers on the board can tell us what this really means.

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me at a bare minimum, those businesses who manufactured these things and were forced to shut down, now have grounds for a lawsuit. I could see this admission by the ATF costing them millions. I also think this is a excellent opportunity to look through past rulings by the ATF, and see where else they made rulings that were way, way, out of their lane..

[Sero Sed Serio]

I won't have time to dig into details until tonight, but talk amongst yourselves...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-stock-ruling/

"ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling"

Hopefully some of the lawyers on the board can tell us what this really means.

The argument (and a good one, IMO) is that this is a violation of separation of powers: the ATF, as a law enforcement/regulatory agency, does not have the authority to create law or to interpret law--those are the purview of the legislature and judiciary, respectively. The legislature can redefine "machine gun" to include bump stocks, a jury can return a verdict of guilty in a bump stock case, and a court of appeals can uphold or overturn trial court rulings. The ATF can make arrests/submit charges, but their legal interpretation, even when drafted by agency attorneys, has no more significance than the opinion of any of us on this forum.

Interestingly enough, my personal opinion is that an ATF opinion is a double-edged sword in our favor: typically, the belief that something is legal when it's actually not (the legal term is "mistake of law") is not a defense that can be presented in court. The only exception is when the mistake of law is based on information provided by an agency charged with enforcing the law. So if the ATF says a bump stock is illegal, that doesn't make it so. However, if the ATF says that a bump stock (or an arm brace, etc.) is legal, and an individual is then charged for possession of a bump stock (or whatever), that individual can present information received from that agency as evidence as to why he/she thought his/her action was legal.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but just like Obama's pen and phone or Kamala Harris's threats of executive action after 100 days, my interpretation is that the bump stock "ban" can't be the final law of the land--that requires legislative action. Then again, it's an issue that will be decided by judges, so...

[Borderland]

The argument (and a good one, IMO) is that this is a violation of separation of powers: the ATF, as a law enforcement/regulatory agency, does not have the authority to create law or to interpret law--those are the purview of the legislature and judiciary, respectively. The legislature can redefine "machine gun" to include bump stocks, a jury can return a verdict of guilty in a bump stock case, and a court of appeals can uphold or overturn trial court rulings. The ATF can make arrests/submit charges, but their legal interpretation, even when drafted by agency attorneys, has no more significance than the opinion of any of us on this forum.

Interestingly enough, my personal opinion is that an ATF opinion is a double-edged sword in our favor: typically, the belief that something is legal when it's actually not (the legal term is "mistake of law") is not a defense that can be presented in court. The only exception is when the mistake of law is based on information provided by an agency charged with enforcing the law. So if the ATF says a bump stock is illegal, that doesn't make it so. However, if the ATF says that a bump stock (or an arm brace, etc.) is legal, and an individual is then charged for possession of a bump stock (or whatever), that individual can present information received from that agency as evidence as to why he/she thought his/her action was legal.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but just like Obama's pen and phone or Kamala Harris's threats of executive action after 100 days, my interpretation is that the bump stock "ban" can't be the final law of the land--that requires legislative action. Then again, it's an issue that will be decided by judges, so...

Feds overstepped here. Should be a slam dunk in court. DOJ had their marching orders and obeyed.

WA banned bumpstocks a few months before the ATF reached their decision. The difference is WA state had a buy back and the fed didn't. That was to address due process (being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law) set out 5A. Eminent domain (the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation) is the same principle) I've had some experience with that.

Yep, it will cost the taxpayer plenty when all the lawsuits are settled.

[5pins]

Bump stocks sales resume in Texas after ATF fails to file stay to stop reversal of ban

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...versal-of-ban/

WASHINGTON — Gun shops are selling bump stocks again in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi after federal regulators failed to file a motion for a stay, or to stop, a ruling that lifted a ban imposed after a Las Vegas rampage left 58 people dead.

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which handles cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, struck down the federal ban from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ruling in January that only Congress has such authority.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So what does Donald have to say about that? Tune into Fox News or Newsmax for an well reasoned statement on why Diane and Nancy aren't getting what they want in TX!