Bump stock | Jotup

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in NCLA’s Cargill Case Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Court, Bureau, Fifth, Bump stock, Government, Army, NCLA, Tobacco, Administration, Crime, Congress, Firearm, ATF, Machine, Supreme court

ATF issued its interpretive Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.

Key Points:

ATF issued its interpretive Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.
The rule required Mr. Cargill and every other bump-stock owner nationwide to either destroy or turn in their legally purchased devices.
This case tasks the Supreme Court with resolving these conflicting opinions.
A bump stock does not alter the trigger on a semi-automatic weapon, so a bump stock does not turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun.”

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump-Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Speech, Bureau, Social media, Firearm, Commerce, Bump stock, Supreme, Fifth, Court, Judge, Tobacco, Congress, Supreme court, NCLA, Constitution, The Administrative State, Machine, Army, ATF

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.

Key Points:

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits.
After it hears oral argument next month, NCLA is confident the Court will interpret the statute correctly and set aside ATF’s rule.
Just last week, oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court in NCLA’s Relentless Inc. v. Dept.
The Supreme Court should set aside this rule that misconstrues the 1986 law banning machine guns and reverses ATF’s 15-plus year position allowing non-mechanical bump stocks.

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Sink Chevron Doctrine for Violating the Constitution in Two Key Respects

Retrieved on:

Monday, November 20, 2023

The Relentless brief highlights two core problems with Chevron deference that NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has pressed for years.

Key Points:

The Relentless brief highlights two core problems with Chevron deference that NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has pressed for years.
NCLA asks the Court to vacate NOAA’s rule, which lacks constitutional and statutory support.
The government also argues that the Supreme Court must uphold Chevron out of stare decisis respect for its prior precedents.
Now it should be relentless in fixing that problem.”
“It is time for the Supreme Court to fish or cut bait on the Chevron doctrine.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear NCLA Case Against ATF’s Unilateral Bump-Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Friday, November 3, 2023

Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al, Supreme court, ATF, United States Department of Commerce, Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Social media, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Bump stock, Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Galioto, Solicitor, NCLA, Garland v. Gonzalez, Congress, Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Tobacco, Commerce, Court, Federation, Firearm, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bureau, Law of the United Kingdom, The Administrative State, Speech, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, The Final Rule, United States courts of appeals, Trump, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Fifth, Army, Administration, En banc, Constitution, Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit, Supreme, Cargill

Today, the Court granted the government’s request for a writ of certiorari in NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban.

Key Points:

Today, the Court granted the government’s request for a writ of certiorari in NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban.
Garland v. Cargill will be NCLA’s fourth case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in under 2 years.
As these cases show, we will fight all the way to the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties from federal agencies’ attacks.
We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court will right this wrong for Michael Cargill and all Americans.”

NCLA Endorses Request for U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on ATF’s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Thursday, June 8, 2023

That petition asks the Court to hear NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump stock ban.

Key Points:

That petition asks the Court to hear NCLA’s challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump stock ban.
That rule reversed ATF’s long-standing recognition that bump stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machineguns.
NCLA urges the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and safeguard Americans’ rights against administrative agency power grabs.
We agree it is high time for the High Court to weigh in on the lawfulness of ATF’s bump stock ban and reassert Congress’s primacy.”

Gun Owners of America Among Nineteen Amici Curiae Supporting Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban

Retrieved on:

Monday, August 8, 2022

ATF is neither engaging in simple fact finding, nor filling in the details in promulgating its Bump Stock Rule.

Key Points:

ATF is neither engaging in simple fact finding, nor filling in the details in promulgating its Bump Stock Rule.
Thus, the Court should construe the statute narrowly to avert this nondelegation concern and hold that the statute does not authorize the Bump Stock Rule.
Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Inc., Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Americas Future, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
This Court should decline to follow the Tenth and D.C.
The manual actions of the shooter make bump-fired firearm not a machine gun, yet a firearm equipped with a bump stock, which requires the same type of manual participation of the shooter, is a machine gun.

NCLA Seeks Fifth Circuit En Banc Review of ATF’s Bump Stock Ban to Resolve Circuit Split

Retrieved on:

Friday, January 28, 2022

For well over a decade, ATF determined that non-mechanical bump stock devices were not machineguns, and hence their possession was not prohibited.

Key Points:

For well over a decade, ATF determined that non-mechanical bump stock devices were not machineguns, and hence their possession was not prohibited.
In 2018, the agency reversed course, creating a new Bump Stock Rule, holding that bump stocks are machineguns after all.
The Fifth Circuit panel held that the Bump Stock Rules interpretation of the statutory definition of machinegunswhich ATF used to determine that bump stocks are machinegunsis the best interpretation of the statute.
Plus, the en banc Sixth Circuit deadlocked 8-8 on the issue and thus was unable to render a decision.

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Decide Three Chevron Deference Questions ATF’s Bump Stock Ban Poses

Retrieved on:

Monday, August 2, 2021

Bump stock, Las Vegas shooting, Law of the United States, Chevron Corporation, Law, Oil companies, Case law, United States administrative law, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(2) The court of appeals also improperly applied Chevron deference to interpret a criminal statute; and (3) it refused to let the rule of lenity resolve statutory ambiguity instead of Chevron.

Key Points:

(2) The court of appeals also improperly applied Chevron deference to interpret a criminal statute; and (3) it refused to let the rule of lenity resolve statutory ambiguity instead of Chevron.
The petition asks the Court to rule on whether courts may apply Chevron deference to an agency interpretation of federal law when the federal government declines to assert Chevron deference.
ATF has refused throughout this litigation to seek Chevron deference, likely because ATF insists that its rule is an interpretive rule only, and Chevron deference never applies to interpretive rules.
All eight court of appeals judges to review ATFs bump stock ban without using Chevron deferenceincluding five Tenth Circuit judges belowhave decided ATFs interpretation of the statute is flat wrong.

NCLA Appeals Bump Stock Ban Ruling that Allowed ATF to Get Away with Rewriting Criminal Law

Retrieved on:

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Gun politics in the United States, Bump stock, Las Vegas shooting, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bump, ATF

The case of NCLAs client, Michael Cargill of Austin, TX, was the first challenge to ATFs bump stock ban to go to trial, last September.

Key Points:

The case of NCLAs client, Michael Cargill of Austin, TX, was the first challenge to ATFs bump stock ban to go to trial, last September.
ATF does not have the power to issue binding legislative rules like the Final Rule targeting bump stocks.
It turned an estimated 520,000 bump stock owners into felons overnight and ordered law-abiding Americans to destroy or surrender their devices to ATF or face 10 years in prison.
NCLA released the following statements:
ATF thinks it can get away with a brazen power grab simply because it involves a sensitive topic.

Chevron Is Admin. Law’s “Lord Voldemort” Say Tenth Cir. En Banc Dissenters in Bump Stock Ban Case

Retrieved on:

Friday, March 5, 2021

Bump stock, Las Vegas shooting, Lawsuit

And litigants bold enough to expressly opposeChevronin their briefing will be left guessing whether their reference to the case was fleeting or perfunctory enough to avoid making an invitation.

Key Points:

And litigants bold enough to expressly opposeChevronin their briefing will be left guessing whether their reference to the case was fleeting or perfunctory enough to avoid making an invitation.
The case also raised key issues about whether an agency can rewrite a federal criminal law.
ATFs rule, however, rewrites the federal law and declares that every person who lawfully purchased a bump stock is now a federal felon.
NCLA will continue to litigate this case, which may include seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.