AzScorpion
Moderator
- First Name
- Dave
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Threads
- 335
- Messages
- 26,382
- Reaction score
- 132,951
- Location
- Back Home In AZ!
- Vehicle(s)
- 2023 Ford Ranger Tremor
- Occupation
- Retired...Full Time Slacker
- Thread starter
- #2,836
Some good news for a change. Federal court strikes down Bump Stock ban! In a unanimous vote 13-1 the 5th circuit stuck down the bump stock ban and said the ATF did NOT have the authority from Congress to do so. It's been said for years the ATF is overstepping their bounds by making up laws without going through Congress. Now this should set the precedence to throw out the magazine ban and the arm brace ban as neither went through the proper channels. Of course this will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court and hopefully they do their job.
Here's the 60 page Court ruling if anyone wants to read through it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-trump-era-bump-stock-ban
Here's the 60 page Court ruling if anyone wants to read through it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-court-strikes-down-trump-era-bump-stock-ban
In a 13-3 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), acting under "tremendous" public pressure, short-circuited the legislative process by approving a rule to define bump stocks as "machineguns," which are illegal to possess. The court said ATF did not have the authority from Congress to do so.
ATF said bump stocks "allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."
The agency ruled bump stocks were "machineguns" because "such devices allow a shooter to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger."
Michael Cargill, the appellant, sued the government after he was forced to surrender several bump stocks under the ATF's rule. He successfully argued that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a "machinegun" under federal law because the trigger functions multiple times to fire the weapon. Federal law defines a machine gun as operating with a "single function of the trigger."
"A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of "machinegun" set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the lead majority opinion.
Sponsored
