DC Court Sides with Government in Bump Stock Ban

[Right click/open in new tab to enlarge]

[Right click/open in new tab to enlarge]

Here's the opinion.

It's nice to see it's not unanimous:

Like countless other Americans, I can think of little legitimate use for a bump stock. That thought, however, has nothing to do with the legality of the Bump Stock Rule. For the reasons detailed supra, I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of "machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

The question now: Will our vaunted "5-4" SCOTUS again wash its hands of it?

As Media Adds to ‘Bump Stock’ Confusion, Attorney Asks Fundamental Question

It’s of particular significance because Senate Democrats have filed a lawsuit claiming Acting AG Matthew Whitaker is legally not qualified to serve in that capacity and a “win” for them could conceivably invalidate everything he signs, including the “bump stock ban.” [More]

Did the “bump stock” ban memo go out as reported and who signed off on the rule? Acting AG Whitaker? And what happens to rules he signs if the Democrat lawsuit disqualifies him as ineligible for that position?

Rendering Unto Caesar

Bear has some suggestions for sending more than demanded and then some. [More]

If I had a "bump stock" (say, something I had no use for until being told I couldn't have one and got just to establish standing  -- and that's a big "if"), my inclination along with filing a lawsuit would be to follow the #IWillNotComply paradigm.

If I were inclined to surrender my property, I might be inclined to turn it over to another government agency first, my local federal collection center, addressed to ATF (c/o 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?) and marked "POSTAGE DUE -- CONTAINS BUMP STOCK" and let them deal with the additional uncompensated expense:

Maybe I'd even do it wearing a large hat and sunglasses, or a disguise, just in case that's frowned upon through regulations.

Then again, I like my first inclination better. If I had a bump stock...

Out of Balance

“You know what? I didn’t even know what a bump stock was,” said Patrick Callahan, 61, from Wyoming. “I have no problem with a bump stock being banned, to be honest with you. I think there’s always balances.” [More]

Even most NRA members think it's about bump stocks and remain oblivious to the greater danger.

[Via Bear]

Bump Stock Ban Signed by Acting AG to Prompt Legal Challenges

Ironically, if the challenge from these anti-gun senators is upheld, it could conceivably invalidate everything Whitaker signs, including the “bump stock ban.” [More]

Anyone who thinks this is “just about bump stocks” is missing the point.

Expert Analysis on Contradictions & Dangers in Proposed ‘Bump Stock’ Ban

A comment posted Tuesday to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ proposed “Bump-Stock Type Device” rule shows the administration’s intended action sets up conditions for a wider ban on semiautomatic firearms. Filed by firearms designer, expert witness and Historic Arms, LLC President  Len Savage, the response to the government’s mandated-by-law request for comments, is posted as four distinct “pdf” files. [More]

If the "rationale" put forth by the administration is allowed to prevail, the gun-grabbers will then be able to use it to go after all semiautos.

A Vote of No Confidence

 BIG 2A WIN * 1st Bump Stock Case Brought To Court: Federal Prosecutor Drops The Charge [Watch]

It's encouraging that the feds are afraid to test the legality against the testimony of their former FTB guru.

As an aside, I was just inputting my two cents on a bump stock legal doc this morning that I'll be writing about later.

[Via Jess]

The Cuccinelli Loophole

Here’s the reason this latest decision, largely impacting the flow of immigrants and refugees, is important to Second Amendment rights. Trump did exactly the same thing in bypassing the lawfully designated “first assistant” to the Attorney General when Jeff Sessions resigned. He appointed Matthew Whitaker, bypassing the Deputy Attorney General at the time.
Whitaker, as acting AG, oversaw the rule-making for the “bump-stock-type devices ban, and signed it on December 18, 2018. It took effect on march 26, 2019.
If, like Cuccinelli, Whitaker wasn’t lawfully appointed to the acting position, then the actions he took in that role have no effect. The administration has tried to dodge that problem by having newly confirmed Attorney General Barr “ratify” the bump stock ban by signing it again. [More]

Oooh, good point. Be great if it voided this.

Lemme run it by my lawyer.

Data Dump

This is the administrative record for our bump stock case it is over 5 thousand pages. It has everything you could possibly need to know about them. Please take a look. [More]

That Facebook post links to a big-@$$ zip file that'll take a while to download.

Per attorney Alan Beck, via email:

Today one our lawsuits challenging the bump stock ban had its administrative record filed. That is all the stuff that the Feds used to justify its decision. It has a lot of technical stuff and other records ... So here it is please note this is 5000 pages and you need to download the files before you can view it.

'We want as many people as possible to see it," he tells me. "The ATF's years of inconsistent determinations should be put in the public light."

Stay on Bump Stock Ban Enforcement against Plaintiffs Requested from Supreme Court

An application to stay implementation and enforcement of the “bump stock” ban was filed Tuesday in the Supreme Court by attorneys for the appellants in the consolidated case of Guedes et al., v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al.  The request to Chief Justice John Roberts, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (who in March denied an emergency stay application), asks for a ruling “until the resolution of a forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari, and any subsequent proceedings, in this case.” [More]

You gotta go through the motions. This one may buy time.

Stay Granted to Bump Stock Plaintiffs

Ordered... [T]he effective date of the Bump-Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018), be administratively stayed in its application only as to the named Appellants in appeals Nos. 19-5042 and 19-5044, pending further order of this Court. The purpose of this stay is exclusively to give the Court sufficient opportunity to consider the disposition of this highly expedited appeal, and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of the appeal. [More]

Some of us have escaped the 26th deadline. Note this only applies to the plaintiffs.

An article has been submitted to AmmoLand and will be forthcoming.

‘Bump Stock’ Lawsuit Makes Unique Points to Seek Injunction against Ban

One other factor makes this complaint unique, and that involves a “bump stock” I own that started life as an Akins Accelerator. [More]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends...

Speaking of Mail

I can't find this on the GOA site to link to, so I'm just pasting the text of their email presser here:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued an order in Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) case challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) bump stock ban. “GOA’s fight is far from over as our lawyers begin preparing a petition for certiorari to the High Court,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, said. “The fact that the Sixth Circuit was so divided that it could not even give us an answer to our question means that the Supreme Court must eventually decide whether unelected ATF bureaucrats have the power to create new federal crimes out of thin air.” The court split evenly, 8 to 8 -- an extremely rare occurrence in the courts of appeals. This peculiar result means that the court was unable to reach a majority opinion either way in the case, resulting in the flawed ruling of the lower, district court being “affirmed” by default. Along with its order, the court issued two opinions, one supporting the bump stock ban and one opposing it, but neither representing the judgement of the court (and so neither with any precedential value.) GOA is concerned that in the future, the ATF could similarly ban semiautomatic firearms by illegally classifying them as machine guns.

The Intolerable Act

Bump Stock Rule Bumps Up Against the Constitution [More]

Good analysis.

I just checked the Federal Register and don't see it published yet. I believe tomorrow is the day the clock will start.

Have you read the rule?  I mean really read it?

Anyone bloviating about bump stocks being expendable and how we were lucky that this is the hit "we" took either hasn't or didn't understand the implications of what they were reading.

Have you seen the destruction mandate? Cut or don't cut a piece the wrong way as ordered and possession means we're gonna getcha. Obey or be destroyed.

It strikes that not only redefines "machinegun," it de facto redefines "firearm" if having the wrong slice of plastic stock is enough to put us away.

These are terms of surrender. This is an Intolerable Act.

CNN Bump Stock Screw-Up Shows Agenda More Important than Accuracy

"CNN as usual is factually incorrect,” Historic Arms LLC President Len Savage told AmmoLand Shooting Sports News. “What the CNN animation is showing is a normal M4 style adjustable stock being collapsed and then extended repeatedly. [More]

Why sweat accuracy details when you have an agenda to disinform anyway? It's not like their viewers will ever know...

Bump Schlock

Mississippi Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh received copies of the emails and fed some to pro-gun online news sites such as Ammoland.  [More]

Leave it to USA Today to neither link to nor synopsize that piece so its readers would know that "on-scene ATF personnel were not allowed to physically examine the interior of the weapons.”

And point of order: "Reporter" Nick Penzenstadler writes "The focus was Slide Fire, a plastic add-on known as a 'bump stock' that allowed Stephen Paddock to run through more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition in 10 minutes."

If he has evidence or an attributable statement from someone in the know that "affixed" stocks were even used, he'd have an exclusive.

A Solution in Search of a Problem

Hawaiian gun  owner rights dynamo George Pace shared the following questions he sent to Senate sponsors the "accelerated rate of fire modification" ban bill."

"I didn't want to get into whether they agreed that any and all modifications that might accelerate the rate of fire would be illegal (i.e. lubricating parts, etc.)... yet," he explains. "Honestly, I don't expect an answer, or if I do get one it will be along the lines of "public safety", same as ban handgun mags over 10 rounds even though no crime was ever committed with those either (where the criminal shot more than 10 rounds)... or stun guns, etc."

Here's what he asked:

As a sponsor of SB2046 could you please answer the following questions in a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal manner in order to clarify the background and necessity of your proposed bill?

1. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any and all trigger modification devices?

2. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with a bump stock and/or bump fire devices?

3. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with trigger cranks?

4. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed orfunctions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm?

5. How many total crimes have been committed in Hawaii, and in what years, involving firearms with any altered part that accelerated the rate of fire of that firearm?

6. Of those total firearms listed above in question 5, please specify the exact modification or alteration of each firearm used in those crimes with an accelerated rate of fire due to said modification or alteration.

Like he said, he's not holding his breath.

Mixed Signals

 Supreme Court Signals Game Changing ATF Smack Down Is Coming!!! [Watch]

He provides a good analysis of what is going on with "bump stocks" in the courts, but I don't see where the title conclusion is coming from. They may or may not hear it and if they do, there are no guarantees on who they'll "smack down."

I do have a "logic" question for the Supreme Court: 

If a bump stock is legally a machinegun and I turned and raised it when confronted by law enforcement, would they be legally protected if they shot me because I didn't put down a "gun"? 

[Via Jess]

We Get a Bump in the Media

 Machine Gun Law, ATF Rule at Center of Suits Over Bump Stock Ban [More]

Ours gets some of the ink in this piece from Bloomberg. On the whole, it has the appearance of balance, but leading off with the arguments by the grabbers buries ours after the initial impression has been made.

You know who ought to file a brief and apologize, say this was never his intent and ATF perverted his orders? The 3D Chessmaster who promised he'd be on our side and then got us into this intolerable mess after a wholly uncalled-for green light from the Lairds of Fairfax.

Except he can't. What a pal.

Today's Five-Minute Activism

[Take Action] Trump’s Bump Stock Regulations Can Turn 500,000 Gun Owners into Felons [More]

And as bad as that is, it's not the worst of it, no matter how many ignoramuses tell you it's just about bump stocks, as opposed to an executive power grab the Democrats will be happy to expand upon when it's their turn.