Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals on March 25 has ruled against the BATFE reclassification of bumpstocks as machine guns, effectively marking the end of the BATFE regulatory ban on them for now. The US Attorney General can appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS, but as of now bumpstocks are no longer banned by the regulation. If the SCOTUS does not take up the case the ruling will stand. Given the SCOTUS reluctance to take up 2A cases the issue may now be settled.

Details here:

 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,436 Posts
Here's what firearms lawyer Ryan Cleckner says about it:

"This means that the pro-gun side won their appeal and the case is being sent back to the lower court to continue. It also means that the lower court will likely issue the injunction and thereby stop the current bump stock ban, However, this injunction will technically apply only to the court’s jurisdiction in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. However, because the DOJ is a party to the lawsuit, it may stop them from enforcing their rule anywhere."​

ref:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Here's what firearms lawyer Ryan Cleckner says about it:

"This means that the pro-gun side won their appeal and the case is being sent back to the lower court to continue. It also means that the lower court will likely issue the injunction and thereby stop the current bump stock ban, However, this injunction will technically apply only to the court’s jurisdiction in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. However, because the DOJ is a party to the lawsuit, it may stop them from enforcing their rule anywhere."​

ref:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
What is important here is that precedent has been set by the 6th finding that the following things were wrong:

  1. The DOJ (and ATF) incorrectly defined bump-stocks as “machine guns,”
  2. The DOJ (and ATF) were not allowed to effectively re-write federal law, and
  3. The lower court should have issued the injunction stopping the “ban” until the matter could be resolved in court.
The lower Court will now get it back to issue the injunction, and while the DOJ can appeal the ruling it will need to request an injunction against until the appeal is heard... the Courts finding of 1 and 2 sets the stage for it not surviving.

Just my .02
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
This is good to see the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms got smacked down for just making up laws without going through the process. Our system says Congress passes bills then the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill. A government bureau should not be able to just pull regulations out their magic hat like they did.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
This is good to see the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms got smacked down for just making up laws without going through the process. Our system says Congress passes bills then the President signs them into law or vetoes the bill. A government bureau should not be able to just pull regulations out their magic hat like they did.
Indeed. Here is hoping they(BATFE) aren't allowed to go after pistol braces; but I can see with a triple D majority in the Executive Branch, however slim the margins are.. for Congress to propose and pass bills that amend/repeal/modify NFA1934, GCA1968, FOPA86 to add a new class of NFA/GCA regulated firearms to include pretty much all they want to classify as Assault Weapons, and thus require registration, confiscation, tax fees paid, and so forth, without trying for AWB2.0 that Feinstein keeps trying.... I mean, I am very sure that they can easily get the 60 votes needed for filibuster proof passage if they were to simply propose just amending/adding/modifying NFA1934 to include "Assault Weapons" :rolleyes: as a sort of "compromise; we didn't get AWB2.0 but here is what we can do" :rolleyes: afterall, Hearing Protection Act failed when the Rs had triple majority... so its like repealing old laws seems rather improbable, but adding/amending? That'll get the votes through.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,998 Posts
A bit of good news that is welcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1024Megabytes

·
AK = Automatic Killer!?!
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
Bump stocks were a little gimmicky and never had the urge to get one, but I am happy that there is at least one court out there that actually understands the law and how it works...

Now the real question is, will the people that threw away their bumpstocks or turned them in get compensation for those lol. Doubtful, but would be hilarious to see someone try it and I of course would cheer them on!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
A bump stock is not a "machine gun" in the same manner that 4 Michelins are not "a car." Sheesh! Shot one a few years ago (a bump stock, not a tire) and it was kinda' fun. Took a bit to get used to it and bumpin' just right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,295 Posts
And Biden stumbled out the next attack on the AR pistols. The braces. It came in his statements after the Boulder shooting. It is a "modification." Bullshit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Think1st

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,832 Posts
And Biden stumbled out the next attack on the AR pistols. The braces. It came in his statements after the Boulder shooting. It is a "modification." Bullshit.
That’s strange. None of my pistols was “modified” to be a pistol, they were all built that way from the beginning.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,295 Posts
That’s strange. None of my pistols was “modified” to be a pistol, they were all built that way from the beginning.
Nothing strange about it. The Prevagen zombie read it off his note card with great emphasis. So what I heard was "install a standard buttstock no SBR stamp required." Problem solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajole

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Bump stocks were a little gimmicky and never had the urge to get one, but I am happy that there is at least one court out there that actually understands the law and how it works...

Now the real question is, will the people that threw away their bumpstocks or turned them in get compensation for those lol. Doubtful, but would be hilarious to see someone try it and I of course would cheer them on!!!
This is what the DOJ and BATFEwas most afraid of, that a Court would rule that they were not a machine gun based on how they operate and function. The DOJ and BATFE dropped charges against at least one individual for possession of a bump stock to stop a Court from doing exactly this.

The question isn't so much about the individual owners that destroyed them, if any did, but of the manufacturers, distributors and dealers who had to destroy their stock and the resultant loss of business and revenue.
 

·
I Stand With Talon
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Nothing strange about it. The Prevagen zombie read it off his note card with great emphasis. So what I heard was "install a standard buttstock no SBR stamp required." Problem solved.
If you install a standard stock on an AR pistol (barrel length less then 16") you are in possession of an unregistered NFA item (SBR) and looking at 10 years in Club Fed. As for Joe, well I'll keep my opinion to myself until after June. ;-)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top