First of all, I will start by quoting the applicable statute:
26 USC §5845. Definitions
(b) Machinegun The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices
Link to the rule as issued by the DoJ, banning bump stocks.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-4036.pdf
Link to the Opinion of the Court and Dissent from the Tenth Circuit.
This opinion arises from an interlocutory appeal from the ruling of the District Court denying a preliminary injunction of the bump stock rule. The Tenth Circuit upheld the denial of relief, stating that the Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits.
I concur with the Opinion of the Court (but not the full reasoning) and disagree with the Dissent (though the dissenter makes a valid observation). Like it or not, Congress has very broadly defined what constitutes a machinegun, including defining the parts thereof. There is absolutely zero doubt that bump stocks fit within the definition provided in the statute.
The Tenth Circuit refers to Chevron Deference in upholding the rule, but frankly Chevron Deference is not required here, the rule is clearly within the bounds of the statute.
The statute is unambiguous, though the majority reasons otherwise. Because the statute is unambiguous, it is clear that bump stocks fall within that portion of the statute which I bolded. Therefore, it was completely unnecessary to raise Chevron Deference at all.
Rather than the approach the majority took, I would have ruled that the Bump Stock Rule was facially valid under the statute.
The Second Amendment has NOT been raised as an issue in this case and any Second Amendment challenge to the Bump Stock Rule would clearly fail. It is beyond question that machineguns are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment and thus Bump Stocks are also beyond the scope of the Second Amendment.
This will NOT go to the Supreme Court, as the underlying case at the District Court has not yet reached final judgement. Pretty much 100% certainty that the District Court upholds the Bump Stock Rule at final judgement. As for the 10th Circuit, depends on the composition of the three judge panel that considers the case after final judgement.
Summary of my view on this:
-
The Second Amendment is NOT violated by the Bump Stock Rule.
-
The Bump Stock Rule is facially valid under the statute.
The 10th Circuit ruled correctly, even though their path to the Opinion was flawed.
(Note: I am speaking ONLY to the legalities of the Bump Stock Rule. I am not speaking as to whether this is a beneficial or necessary rule. I personally have no objection to it, though I am also not a proponent of it.)
