Bump Stock Legal Again

[Drycreek3189]

This case could have huge legal implications. Not only will the Supreme Court rule if a bump stock is a machine gun, it might also deal with ATF’s rule making authority and the ability to interpret definitions which are not specifically defined in a law.

If they actually will. The SCOTUS lately seems like a sorry employee, just doing what they have to do.

[tvc184]

If they actually will. The SCOTUS lately seems like a sorry employee, just doing what they have to do.

Such as?

[tvc184]

[/B]

Imo your last statement is the most important piece of the overtsfepping of the ATF.

Loper v. Raimondo had oral arguments on January 17th in front of the Supreme Court.

That case could potentially be huge depending on how the Supreme Court decides.

Did I say HUGE? 🤞🏼

The Supreme Court took this case as a challenge to the Chevron Deference case where if a definition in the law was ambiguous, a federal agency was allowed to determine what Congress “meant to say”.

If this overturns Chevron, it will go to what is called the Rule of Lenity or AKA the Rule of Strict Construction. That means that if a law is ambiguous and not clearly stated, the ruling goes in favor of the defendant.

An example is the recent case of Mathew Hoover in Florida. He sold basically metal credit cards with computer etched designs on it. If you cut exactly along the lines on the card, then bent a couple of the pieces at a certain angle, potentially you could make your own machine gun. I don’t think it was ever proven in court, and the ATF did not make a firing model as proof, but they called the Credit Card sized piece of metal, a machine gun. The question was, is a flat piece of metal (basically stock) the same as the congressionally pass definition of a machine gun? ATF said yes, a flat piece of metal with lines on it that with certain manipulation and manufacturing, could potentially (but not proven) become a machine gun, was in fact, a machine gun by law, because of intent.

If Loper results in a favorable ruling and overturns Chevron, federal agencies will not be able to determine what a definition means. If Congress writes a vague or ambiguous law, the ruling goes in favor of the defendant.

Did I mention huge?

So why did the Supreme Court take this case? There are two reasons that a Supreme Court takes a case, which has already been ruled on. One is that people keep bringing it up and they want to reaffirm the previous decision and maybe make it tougher or…. they are looking to overturn the previous decision. An example of that is when they took the case on abortions, which was already previously ruled on in Roe v. Wade, but they took it to throw it out completely.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed that Loper overturns Chevron and if it does, many rulings from government agencies might start falling by the wayside.

[100%TtId]

I’ll go out on a limb and say both cases will be 5-4 with Roberts once again disappointing us.

I hope I’m wrong.

[muzzlebrake]

Accuracy by volume

True. In the Infantry it's known as gaining fire superiority. Erbody with an M16 dumps a full mag with the switch on rock and roll. Then it was the M60's turn.

[Pedernal]

If anyone is still interested, this case as mentioned, was won by Michael Cargill in front of the Fifth Circuit Court. The US AG Garland appealed to the Supreme Court and they accepted the case for appeal.

Next Wednesday, February 28th, the case is set for oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court at 8am Central Time.

This case could have huge legal implications. Not only will the Supreme Court rule if a bump stock is a machine gun, it might also deal with ATF’s rule making authority and the ability to interpret definitions which are not specifically defined in a law.

Thank you for the updates Señor 184! Is there a streaming or cable provider that will televise the case or is this just not available to the public until the final ruling??

[tvc184]

Thank you for the updates Señor 184! Is there a streaming or cable provider that will televise the case or is this just not available to the public until the final ruling??

I have never heard of televisions allowed in the Supreme Court.

They often or perhaps always broadcast the oral arguments.

I think a search on youtube on that morning will give a few live broadcasts.

I have never listened to them live but have listen to some of them afterwards.

Listening to the justices, it is sometimes hard to know how they will vote. I think that they sometimes ask devil’s advocate questions just to see the response or if they can defend a point (and sometimes hoping they can defend a point). It isn’t quite like listening to Congress, where they almost always ask softball questions to people on their side yet grill a person on the other side of the aisle.

As an example, here is a recording of the Loper case, which if it overturns Chevron, would be a major shift in court doctrine. The Petitioner (Plaintiff) usually gives about a 1-2 minute opening remarks and then the justices start questioning immediately. It is a couple of hours of questioning as both sides try to might their case and the justices go back and forth.

https://www.youtube.com/live/odcOCnNfSQw?si=H0XGSCL-9sWY5hMZ

This is the oral arguments a couple of years ago that gave us the Bruen decision that overturned a state’s authority to deny a concealed carry permit/license. That case is still being argued in the lower courts on how far a state can restrict certain locations. It is interesting arguments though.

https://youtu.be/0mlkS3Sagik?si=rR9b7c3mfjXu4Nw5

[tvc184]

The 90 minute oral arguments. I will go back and listen but the opening remarks by the government almost caused me to break my iPhone.

https://www.youtube.com/live/oLPcR7abNgs?si=isZMyETQzLR2pdjI

[imyomama]

To each his own, but I’ve yet to find an application that calls for one

what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas .. allegedly..