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

Safiel · 2023-01-10T04:45:43.450Z

ca5.uscourts.gov

20-51016-CV2.pdf

578.58 KB

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.

WuWei · 2023-01-10T04:54:08.300Z

Safiel:

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

It’s enough.

GrandWazoo · 2023-01-10T05:43:04.814Z

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?

SixFoot · 2023-01-10T13:45:31.656Z

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

Steel-W0LF · 2023-01-10T21:34:31.835Z

GrandWazoo:

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?

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.

Safiel · 2023-01-10T21:54:44.668Z

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

Samm · 2023-01-11T05:37:58.219Z

GrandWazoo:

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?

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.

SixFoot · 2023-08-16T19:11:24.892Z

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

bearingarms.com

Bump stocks back on store shelves in three states

Though for how long is anyone’s guess. After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ATF’s administrative ban on bump stocks, the Department of Justice had until last Monday to...

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

Reuters – 25 Apr 23

Another appeals court rules against US ban on gun 'bump stocks'

A second federal appeals court has struck down a nationwide ban on so-called "bump stocks," devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to rapidly fire multiple rounds like machine guns.

Don’t read too much into it though.

Safiel · 2023-08-16T19:36:47.737Z

SixFoot:

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

Bump stocks back on store shelves in three states – Bearing Arms

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

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/another-appeals-court-rules-against-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2023-04-25/

Don’t read too much into it though.

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.

SixFoot · 2023-08-16T20:35:08.939Z

Keep those losses for anti-rights losers coming.

Safiel · 2023-08-16T21:52:53.899Z

SixFoot:

Keep those losses for anti-rights losers coming.

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.

SixFoot · 2023-08-16T22:25:45.548Z

Safiel:

This is not a second amendment case.

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

Safiel · 2023-08-16T22:38:02.247Z

SixFoot:

Safiel:

This is not a second amendment case.

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

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.

SixFoot · 2023-08-16T22:50:09.524Z

Safiel:

the Second Amendment was not mentioned at all.

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.

Samm · 2023-08-17T04:44:13.440Z

SixFoot:

Safiel:

This is not a second amendment case.

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

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

WuWei · 2023-08-17T09:47:56.252Z

Safiel:

It is being litigated as an agency overreach.

Which it absolutely is.

WuWei · 2023-08-17T09:48:10.355Z

True that.