Bumpstock ban overturned and ruling is good for braces

[Suck My Glock]

[thom]

Nice thanks. Now how many boaters will be back at Saguaro Lake looking for their lost bumpstocks.

[Boriqua]

Wish they would make Silencers easier to procure. I dont "NEED" one but would love to try one but the cost and process is a bit to daunting. Threaded barrel for my HK 45c and off I go would be cool

[AZDESERTRAT]

Silencershop and their local kiosks make buying a suppressor so easy. Done it the old way and the kiosk way and can say it’s as easy as ording something on Amazon and walking into a gun store twice. Don’t let the process deter you. So worth the $ and time. Just wish the wait was shorter. Just be ready to buy threaded barrels and adapters for everything you own! Lol

[xerts1911]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q03674bidy5ke ... c.pdf?dl=0

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Just close all the Dropbox crap to view the document

[Suck My Glock]

[brandyspaw]

Nice to get some good news for a change!

[XJThrottle]

The decision doesn't have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.

Nothing has actually changed. Still illegal.

[BigNate]

One of the very positive things in how this decision was written is that it looks very much like it applies equally to the coming rule about pistol braces. Essentially, the @TF does not have the authority to define a bump stock or a pistol brace as something that they regulate.

[paulgt2164]

One of the very positive things in how this decision was written is that it looks very much like it applies equally to the coming rule about pistol braces. Essentially, the @TF does not have the authority to define a bump stock or a pistol brace as something that they regulate.

I would bet that is due to the recent supreme court ruling regarding the EPA basically saying these three letter agencies can't make their own laws - it has go before congress.

The ruling basically said :

In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

So hopefully this ruling / precedence will be used for stuff the ATF wants to do as well.......

[BigNate]

One of the very positive things in how this decision was written is that it looks very much like it applies equally to the coming rule about pistol braces. Essentially, the @TF does not have the authority to define a bump stock or a pistol brace as something that they regulate.

I would bet that is due to the recent supreme court ruling regarding the EPA basically saying these three letter agencies can't make their own laws - it has go before congress.

The ruling basically said :

In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

So hopefully this ruling / precedence will be used for stuff the ATF wants to do as well.......

Yep - and it could be even bigger than that. I understand that a number of justices have indicated a willingness to overturn the "Chevron Doctrine" - which is the legal doctrine that has resulted in much of the expansion of authority of federal agencies by allowing them to set the scope of their own authority where not explicitly constrained by the actual law.

Professor Michael McDonnell of Stanford Law School (and former federal appeals court judge) describes the Chevron Doctrine as: "...the idea that in litigation over federal agency action, the courts will defer to the agency’s own construction of its operating statute, unless that construction is outside the range of reasonableness, usually because the meaning of the statute is clear. The effect is to give the executive branch considerable leeway in determining the scope of its own power. Although first announced in 1984, Chevron deference has become a central pillar of the modern administrative state. It is a systemic thumb-on-the-scales in favor of the government’s view of the meaning of the statute, even if that view changes with political winds and even if it contradicts earlier judicial interpretation."
(Kavanaugh And The Chevron Doctrine)

I've now seen multiple online 2A commentators / lawyers say that they think that SCOTUS is looking at this particular bump-stock case as the vehicle to address reversal of the Chevron Doctrine. If it happens, it will be a fantastic step back towards limited government in that it will require congress to SPECIFICALLY dictate the scope of authority of an agency instead of letting that agency self define its authority based on intentionally vague law.

If they overturn the Chevron Doctrine it will have a huge positive effect in terms of neutering expansive government. Congress will need to go on record and actually pass restrictive law - instead of passing vague / nebulous law and letting the federal agencies in the executive branch do the expansion of authority through their interpretation.

Fingers crossed...

[kenpoprofessor]

I've now seen multiple online 2A commentators / lawyers say that they think that SCOTUS is looking at this particular bump-stock case as the vehicle to address reversal of the Chevron Doctrine. If it happens, it will be a fantastic step back towards limited government in that it will require congress to SPECIFICALLY dictate the scope of authority of an agency instead of letting that agency self define its authority based on intentionally vague law.

If they overturn the Chevron Doctrine it will have a huge positive effect in terms of neutering expansive government. Congress will need to go on record and actually pass restrictive law - instead of passing vague / nebulous law and letting the federal agencies in the executive branch do the expansion of authority through their interpretation.

Fingers crossed...

They really should be looking at overturning Wickard V Filburn, that's given the gov. way too much power.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

[Suck My Glock]

It seems at the very least that this destroys ATF's ruling on reset triggers.

[BigNate]

They really should be looking at overturning Wickard V Filburn, that's given the gov. way too much power.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

After a brief read - I'll say - "I concur - let's jettison that one too..."

[1bardan+]

Guys, all it really means is that until the chevron doctrine is decided, ATF won't come out with an arm brace decision. ATF previously said they would announce an arm brace rule in December. That didn't happen because the appeals court decision sending it back to the lower court, would have made any ATF rule unenforceable. ATF wants to sound strong when they make an announcement to the state run so called news media (nbc, abc, msnbc, the clinton news network [cnn]), "We just saved 100,000 children, lgbtq, unicorns and southern border migrants", instead of "This is our new rule and its useless".
Also, I wouldn't be dredging the canal for your old bump stock yet.