Tag: bump stocks

Intended to Fail

Schumer will ask senators to ban bump stocks through unanimous consent—where all senators would have to agree to the measure… [More]

In other words, this is pure politics done in order to point fingers at Republicans bwefore the election.

UPDATE

Failed as intended.

And Susan Collins is still a worthless Republic***

Bump in the Pols

Stop the U.S. Senate from Banning Bump Stocks – According to The Hill, Senator Chuck Schumer plans to bring a ban on bump stocks to a vote in the Senate this week! [More]

What, he’s taking a break from showing us he doesn’t have the first idea how to grill while pretending he’s a normal American?

The Senate can’t by themselves, and the House isn’t likely to pass anything unless a Reichstag shooting makes the “moderates” run for the hills.

Still, if your Senator(s) is/are the approachable kind, it won’t hurt to let them know you care.

In my case, Sherrod Brown’s a waste of time as well as oxygen, but JD Vance has been making the right noises (of late).

Point/Counterpoints

These aren’t my words. These are theirs:

What am I saying, that bump stocks weren’t used?

Don’t kill the messenger, I’m just posting what ATF has said.

3D Bump Chess?

Very important to understand that strategic decision by Donald Trump and the NRA to basically sign off if you will on doing a bump stock ban through executive order, I didn’t like it, I was not happy about it, but I understood the strategy sometimes one has to lose battles to win the war, that is how the real world works… [Watch]

Really? A plan comes together? That’s what you’re going with?

So, I guess, “Take the guns first, due process later” was another genius move they just couldn’t tell us about?

And envisioning Inspector Clouseau pretending his screwup was intentional to save face is just me not being smart enough to understand what the grownups are doing?

[Via Jess]

A Dream Come True

57 F. 4th 447, affirmed. [More]

Meaning:

Bump Stocks Now Legal Again As Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun Device Ban

Looks like ATF will have to surrender my bump stock back to me when I come to confiscate it from them.

UPDATE

Herschel points out a concern with “Alito’s “Machinegun Sammy’s” response.

I agree. Congress has no Constitutional authority to “act,” either.

Supreme Court Back-and-Forth on Bump Stocks Creates Nail-Biter Anticipation

This pretty much defined the day. Those expecting a Second Amendment defense decrying Chevron deference overreach instead heard the justices trying to grasp competing definitions of “function of a trigger” along with scenarios unlikely to persuade judges who equate “common use” with widespread commercial popularity. [More]

You were expecting a slam dunk…?

Sobering Thoughts

Prediction: They will issue a ruling addressing the minutia of the procedural rules and punt this back down to the lower courts. They will avoid the issue entirely and thus free and exonerate themselves of holding anyone in the FedGov accountable. [More]

With all the video “gunfluencers” out there getting our hopes up that Cargill will be the beginning of the end for ATF’s “rulemaking” shenanigans, Herschel gives his reasons for believing we could end up disappointed.

Man, I sure hope he’s wrong.

But he’s never not thoughtful.

UPDATES

Looks like I’ll use this post as today’s aggregator:

CHECK THIS LINK FOR NEWS UPDATES

Supreme Court appears torn over challenge to gun ‘bump stocks’ [More]

Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson we expected. This is what worries me:

Chief Justice John Roberts, like Kavanaugh a potential key vote if the court is divided, said little to indicate which way he was leaning.

Follow Mark W. Smith’s running commentary on X.

SCOTUS Oral arguments: MP3 and Transcript

Allies Through Action

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses all the Amicus Briefs filed in Cargill v. Garland, a challenge to ATF’s bump stock ban. This case involves a lot more than just bump stocks, rather it is a challenge to ATF’s entire playbook. Now is the time for the Amicus to fly in and today we noticed a new player in the game, Palmetto State Armory. They, along with the Firearms Regulatory and Accountability Coalition have filed an outstanding brief in support of Garland, but this marks the first time since we had this channel that a major firearms manufacturer has thrown in on something like this. So today we give them an “Atta-Boy” so that you can arm yourself with education. [Watch]

Support those who support us.

[Via Jess]

One Man’s ‘Peril’…

Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to overturn or limit a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies and frustrated business groups hostile to government regulation. Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the fate of a foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril. [More]

This fish story is the one to watch…

Any bets on how soon I get my bump stock back…?

In Your Face Because They Can

Omaha mayor signs bump stock ban, joining city curb on gun kits [More]

As I noted earlier when the city was adding harassment infringements to permitless carry:

While the position is officially nonpartisan, it’s interesting to note that Stothert is one of those “moderate” Republicans who take the fire out of the bellies of gun owners looking for alternatives to gun-grabbing Democrats. In her case, her husband’s 2021 suicide “from a self-inflicted gunshot wound” merits our sympathy, but not to the extent that using her political power to mandate life-endangering infringements should be tolerated.

[Via Jess]

Where Credit is Due

The Supreme Court Should Not Let Bureaucrats Invent Crimes by Rewriting the Law – The Trump administration’s unilateral ban on bump stocks turned owners of those rifle accessories into felons. [More]

Let’s not forget the role Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox played in paving the way (and good luck finding their joint statement on the NRA website anymore).

Pointing all that out and more seems to make some people uncomfortable. One angry reader canceled his subscription over it.

You know the type.

[Via Michael G]

Cert Granted

Cargill v. Garland [More]

Issue:

Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.”

Guess what that will determine.

Rotten to the Core

At the center of this case is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) properly interpreted the term “machinegun,” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), to include items known as non-mechanical bump stocks. [More]

And at the center of that is the question of where the hell any branch of government has the legitimate authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights