|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 25, 2021, 08:56 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 407
|
6th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on bumpstocks
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that bump stocks are not machine guns. The decision sends the case back to the district court to determine the extent of an injunction, which in any case would only apply to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. This creates a circuit split that may send the case to the Supreme Court. More info here. This may put a (slight) brake on novel administrative interpretation of existing firearm laws.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition |
March 26, 2021, 01:32 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
It'll be interesting to see where it goes and the logic used. I'm not hopeful at the national level, but every so often logic and rule of law coincide.
|
March 26, 2021, 02:44 AM | #3 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
The only place it can go is the Supreme Court.
As to the logic, it's small and hard to read but the entire decision is there at the end of the article: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Basically, the ruling says that a law should be read to mean what the words say, so when the definition of machine gun says it fires multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, that's what it means. And a bump stock doesn't make a firearm fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 26, 2021 at 04:26 PM. Reason: typo |
||||
March 26, 2021, 07:50 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
March 26, 2021, 09:23 AM | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Let me first say that it is very likely the government will ask for a rehearing en banc because, if it does not, the panel's opinion on Chevron deference in (some) criminal cases will become binding circuit precedent. The Sixth Circuit does not hear a lot of cases en banc, but this could be one they take. I doubt the government would seek Supreme Court review unless going this route first. Even then, it might not seek Supreme Court review since this is a preliminary injunction which is restricted by its own terms to the states in the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) and to "the parties themselves." Slip opinion at 36. The Supreme Court might have another shot at it following final determination of the issues. The Sixth Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court has often allowed circuit splits for a time so that more courts could weigh in on the issues.
The decision not to give Chevron deference to agency interpretation of criminal statutes is much more impactful than the bump-stock issue itself. Without getting too lawyerly, the Chevron case provides that courts give administrative agencies a great deal of deference when interpreting a statute. But, Chevron did not involve criminal penalties. The Sixth Circuit opinion rejected the primary rationale for Chevron deference when interpreting statutes with criminal penalties (or at least some of them). Chevron is premised on the assumption that administrative agencies have expertise of the subject matter they regulate and that this expertise should be given weight. The majority opinion rang a church bell, warning of of Executive Branch overreach: "Federal criminal laws are not administrative edicts handed down upon the masses as if the administrators were God delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai." Slip op. at 20 (emphasis added). The court then summarized its reason for rejecting this rationale for Chevron deference: Quote:
The majority also thought the agency interpretation violated separation of powers: Quote:
The court also thought that an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute against a person charged violated the rule of lenity in criminal cases and raised concerns about fair notice in this particular instances because of a change in the agency's interpretation. Finally, the majority opinion then rejected the government's interpretation that a bump stock was a machine gun since the shooter only pulled his or her finger only once. Instead, it interpreted the statute to mean that there was no machine gun where the mechanical trigger itself would be depressed (and released) for each shot, as is the case where a bump stock is employed. I've only hit a couple of high points in the opinion. There's lots of discussion about case law and why the court felt free to not follow the lead of two other circuits on this issue. |
||
March 26, 2021, 09:33 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2018
Posts: 539
|
I read yesterday SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal in consideration of overturning the law. - So it stands.
Please correct me if I understood this incorrectly. |
March 26, 2021, 12:16 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Different case I assume
|
March 26, 2021, 04:31 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
There is no law banning bump stocks. There is a law that defines what is a machine gun, and the case being discussed in this thread shows us that the 6th Circuit panel decided that the definition in the law is clear enough that the BATFE's sudden decision to interpret the law as prohibiting bump stocks isn't valid.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
March 26, 2021, 06:37 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
2wheelwander---
I think the case you were thinking about is Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in which the Supreme Court denied review of a bump-stock case earlier this month. See https://reason.com/volokh/2020/03/02...ce=parsely-api. This is one of the cases the Sixth Circuit panel recognized as conflicting with its own opinion. |
March 27, 2021, 04:30 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2016
Posts: 3,883
|
Quote:
When you have enforcement agencies who can change on a whim what's legal and not legal, with no accountability to the people, it's not only a violation of the Constitution, but also basic human rights.
__________________
"We always think there's gonna be more time... then it runs out."
|
|
March 27, 2021, 10:30 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
You're right. And the majority opinion discusses that very point.
|
|
|