Don't read too much into the 5th Circuit's bump stock decision

Politics Second Amendment
1

Link to the en banc Opinion of the Fifth Circuit in Cargill v Garland.

One thing we need to clear up here. This is NOT a Second Amendment issue. And all 13 Judges of the majority concede that Congress could, BY STATUTE, ban bump stocks and impose a criminal sanction for possession.

There clearly is no Second Amendment protection for bump stocks and the majority concedes this point readily.

This case arises SOLEY on the grounds that the ATF exceeded the scope of the statute defining machines guns, and thus its authority, in banning bump stocks.

If Congress ultimately, by law, bans bump stocks, that statute will clearly be upheld, even in the 5th Circuit.

This case is merely reigning in an agency that exceeded its authority in crafting a regulation, nothing more.

1 Like
2

It’s enough.

2 Likes
3

From what I read about the Las Vegas shooting, multiple weapons jammed because the bump stocks caused the weapons to over-heat due to the rapid fire. Is this true? And if so, why would anyone purchase a device that could harm their weapon?

4

Libs really need you to lose your right to own a bump stock. They need this victory in a (D)isgusting way.

Remember, folks, mass murders don’t go out and commit mass murder every day.

Leftists, on the other hand, never stop seeking to strip you of your God-given rights. They are, and will always be, a bigger threat to you than any other criminal out there.

giphy

5 Likes
5

It’s “fun” over “function”.

They make the weapons a lot less reliable, but it’s fun to pull a trigger and go Bbbbbbrrrrrrrttt and be out of ammo.

3 Likes
6

I would note that bump stocks will remain illegal in Florida due to a statute signed by former Governor Rick Scott.

7

I think the Las Vegas shooter was aware of that. That’s why he had several rifles with him rather than just a big stash of loaded magazines.

8

This thread happened in January. Bump stocks went back on shelves in March.

And the 6th Circuit dealt another blow to this stupidity in April.

Don’t read too much into it though.

:wink:

9

And don’t read too much into what has just happened either.

The DoJ essentially conceded this case.

And it still rides on Chevron Deference grounds, not Second Amendment grounds.

10

Keep those losses for anti-rights losers coming. :metal:

11

Again, you seem to be missing the point.

This is not a second amendment case.

And we are still at a relatively early stage of litigation.

I am not “taking sides” in this case at all.

Just cautioning to let this play out, that’s all.

12

It’s an inherent right to self defense case, whether you like it or not. :hugs:

13

It is not being litigated that way. It is being litigated as an agency overreach.

Even in two cases that went to the Supreme Court and were declined, the Second Amendment was not mentioned at all.

Chevron Deference was mentioned many times.

And it is smart to litigate it on anti-Chevron Deference grounds.

A bump stock ban would likely survive a second amendment challenge, even under Thomas’s new standards.

Ultimately, it is NOT likely to survive in the long run with a court determined to overturn Chevron Deference.

So it is not even desirable to invoke the second amendment for this. This should remain purely as an anti-Chevron Deference case.

14

Nice tactic. If it works, good. Either way, it’s an inherent right to self defense case, no matter how badly you or anyone else have mangle the English language in order to get these losers away from my rights. :wink:

15

Actually it’s a right to waste as much ammo as you can afford case. :wink:

1 Like
16

Which it absolutely is.

17

True that.