Bumpstock ban is headed to SCOTUS!

Ill admit I wish there was a better case going to SCOTUS. Not that this one doesn’t have meritt, it absolutely does, but it’s hard to stake your claim on a novelty item vs something like AWB, mag limits, ammo tax, may issue CCW, etc.
 
@Ikarus1 absolutely, I'd love to see something like that get shot down by SCOTUS!

That said, I still can't see how they can justify banning the bumpstock by classifying it as an MG when it's just an accessory that doesn't change the function of fire, just increases the rate.
 
Last edited:
@Ikarus1 absolutely, I'd love to see something like that get shot down by SCOTUS!

That said, I still can't see how they can justify banning the bumpstock by classifying it as an MG when it's just an accessory that doesn't change the function of fire, just increases the rate.
The language in the law defines a machine gun as something entirely different than what a bumpstock does. Seems pretty cut and dry if they stick to the law as written
 
The language in the law defines a machine gun as something entirely different than what a bumpstock does

And the ATF had already given the OK for them because they didn't change the function of a semi-auto.

I agree there are other cases that better deserve scrutiny by the court, but glad to see some progress being made. Still don't think it's a slam dunk.
 
This one isn’t about bump stocks. It is about Executive redefinition of legislatively defined terms. The Democrats have thrown the term “constitutional crisis” around ad nauseam the last two years. This really is one, it just doesn’t look like it to most people, yet.

If SCOTUS upholds the ban, watch out in the near future. The Exexutive Branch will be able to redefine with impunity.
 
So...did anyone wake up a Felon this morning?

March 26...as of 0001 this morning, possession of a bumpstock is a felony.

@cubrock, he is spot on...Regards the case going to the Gang of Nine...remember, the gov rewrote the law and redefined what a machine-gun is...that is the dangerous precedent.
 
Speaking optimistically, we won't have to wade through listings for $300 bumpstocks.

For a while.

Then we'll see them back but for $50. I probably still won't get one.

Legally, it should be a slam dunk, but when a fine is a tax and the reasonable exception clause is the paramount clause in the Constitution (except for the inconvenient fact that it isn't there at all but a Supremacy Clause is there), all bets are off.
 
Just saw a VCDL update a little bit ago, claiming details to follow, but in short there were TWO stays before the court, one of which got shot down. The other one will have its fate decided tomorrow.

I'll edit the post to include the memo shortly.

Edit to add:
Here is the memo from earlier today:
The previous alert mentioned that a stay on the bump-stock ban was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. HOWEVER, it turns out that was for a stay filed by a different group. The VCDL/GOA stay is still alive! We probably aren't going to know what the Supreme Court says about that stay until tomorrow.

Stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed.

(We will be also discussing all of this in the VCDL membership meeting tonight in Chesterfield from 7 to 8 pm at the North Courthouse Road library.)

-

Finally, this was forwarded to me by Stephen P. Wenger:

That Smoldering Bump-Stock Controversy: One of the pioneers of bump stock devices is warning owners not to turn them over to the federal government thoughtlessly ahead of this week’s deadline for doing so under new rules outlawing them. William L. Akins, inventor of the Akins Accelerator, says people turning in bump stocks should be wary of any forms relinquishing their rights to the property, and also should ask for a property receipt signaling that while they have turned over the device, they still have an ownership stake in it. Should the courts side with gun owners in their challenges to the new rules banning bump stocks, the device owners then have a chance to get their property back – or to at least be compensated... (This article goes on to describe Akins' unsuccessful attempt to get F Troopers to sign his own receipt form. I don't know whether any list members own these devices nor what they used to sell for. While I understand and sympathize with Akins' position, unless F Troop has reformed over recent decades, giving F Troop a hard time could result in an unpleasant visit by an entry team at oh-dark hundred.)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/24/william-l-akins-akins-accelerator-bump-stock-inven/

As I recall, in the unexcerpted portion of the linked article, Akins surrendered 63 of them.
 
Last edited:
I can't recall how many times in the last day or so that it was described on the Josef Gobbles picture machine as taking only one pull of the trigger to fire full-auto. This, despite their pictures showing the trigger being pulled each time.
 
. He is worse than Obama.
giphy.gif
 
I'm not saying this is what happened... Trump made a decision to 'ban X' by Executive Order. If it's truly unconstitutional, would be overturned. Overturned in the courts (unconstitutional) or by law (popular).

Do I like the outcome, no. Do I care about bump stocks, no. Is this finished, no.
 
Last edited:
If it's truly unconstitutional, would be overturned. Overturned in the courts (unconstitutional) or by law (popular).
The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.
 
The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.

Yes, that's a 3rd outcome and another issue that needs addressing.
 
Last edited:
The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.
well so far the SCOTUS has taken up 2 gun related major cases after years of avoiding the issue (basically since Heller and McDonald):

The bumpstock ban and more importantly the case against NYC's concealed carry ban will test this court to see if Kavanaugh and more importantly, Gorsuch are who we thought they were. Personally I think Roberts is the loose end on this court based on what we saw with the ACA.
 
Won’t this be a case about executive overreach, and not about 2a? The result could have all sorts of implications and I’m not sure but I expect that most justices will vote to reign it the executive branch.
 
Won't what be a case?
Won’t the arguments at the court focus on executive overreach rather than parsing the issues around the definition of a machine gun?
 
Free Men should not look to a gang of government employees - especially those with lifetime appointments completely shielded from the consequences of their actions - for meaningful redress of grievances against the government.

That said, it is vitally important to exhaust all peaceful means of redress before a Free People is forced to make tough decisions of terrible consequence.

That said - precedent and monentum is a good thing for keeping things on the peaceful side of the fence.
 
Last edited:
No I mean what case? There isn't one that I know of.
Sorry, I believe that there were some injunctions filed, one denied and one pending, each related to cases that I assume have been filed but that the court has not yet agreed to hear. So in short, I only know what I’ve read on the internet.
 
Didn’t the court deny this?
Ban stays?
They denied a preliminary injunction that would alleviate the ban until the case is heard. Which is absurd. The ban of this unserialized untracked item is currently in effect, so make sure you turn in all those rubber bands and belt loops to your local ATF. Oh wait, just the COMMERCIALLY SOLD ways to bumpfire.
 
Fortunately, it was only the requests for injunction that were denied. The actual court cases continue to go forward. The question is whether they make it to SCOTUS before they ban semi-autos with this same tactic.



Terry
 
Back
Top Bottom