Wayne was no doubt too busy at the nail salon or something.

Still waiting on the results of the investigation of the Las Vegas shooting, hahaha.

I have no intention of purchasing a bump stock, but am pleased with this decision. I am a supporter of the arm brace.

When the bump stock turn in was in effect, I had 3 people come into the office (SSA) and hand me bump stocks. Had to tell them that ATF was down the hall. Not one was upset about turning in the stock! I was surprised....

its a shame that people willingly gave up personal property to such an abusive and anti-American agency as the ATF

I feel bad for them

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
So this is one circuit where other circuits have upheld the ATF? The SCOTUS may have to take this now.

I wasn't aware another circuit had ruled on this ?

US Military Court Rules Bump Stock Is Not A Machine Gun

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...tock-not-machine-gun

On Sept. 9, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns in the case U.S. v. Ali Alkazahg. This is a big win for gun owners and reaffirms the fact that items that are not machine guns by legal definition cannot be classified as machine guns simply because the ATF "feels" like they meet the definition.

Let's take a peek at the case. Private Ali Akazahg was in Hawaii on the Marine Corps base in Kaneohe Bay. While there, he was convicted of possessing two machine guns in violation of the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although, these "Machine Guns" were, in fact, bump stocks. Akazahg's defense argued that bump stocks did not meet the legal definition of a machine gun.

Here's an excerpt from the decision:

"Instead, the President directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] to issue a new interpretation of a rule—that contradicted the ATF's previous interpretation—governing legislation from the 1930s. This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes."

The court is essentially laying out the fact that the ATF bypassed Congress to create law. They go on to explain that:

"In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act [FOPA], banning possession of machine guns not owned before 1986. FOPA also banned any parts, to include frames and receivers, which were part of a machine gun or were designed for converting a weapon into a machine gun. The current statute at issue is 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), which defines what a machine gun is. Due to having a bump stock, Appellant was charged under the statute which states that a machine gun is "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

The court explains that the bump stock not only does not meet that definition, but similar situations have already been litigated in Civilian courts as well. They cite Gun Owners of America v. Garland, which took place in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In GOA v. Garland, the Sixth Circuit agreed that bump stocks did not meet the definition of a machine gun. Interestingly, they noted that the current classification of bump stocks as machine guns has relied upon Chevron deference. For those unfamiliar, it is a legal principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute.

To sum up, the Judges declared that bump stocks are not machine guns. This adds to the growing list of bump stock court cases making their way to the Supreme Court, as the US Court of Military Appeals is like the Federal Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court.

The case from the latest article effects members of the military. But AFAIK, there are still conflicting rulings in different federal circuits. So can people living in the 6th Circuit legally possess bump stocks, but people in the other circuits can't. Is that current situation?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The case from the latest article effects members of the military. But AFAIK, there are still conflicting rulings in different federal circuits. So can people living in the 6th Circuit legally possess bump stocks, but people in the other circuits can't. Is that current situation?

Has ANY court ruled in the ATF's favor? I am unfamiliar of any who have up to this point.

Bump stocks are dumb but I swear if I see one for sale at a reasonable price I’m buying it just to give the ATF the finger.

I’m with leemur. I never had any interest nor ever owned an AR until I came home from deployment to find my government had outlawed them. At that point it was “game on”. Tell me I can’t have something is a sure fire way to make it interesting. Bump stocks are stupid to me. Yet so is tannerite, baby gender reveals, and choreographed dances at weddings and all those are still allowed so screw that. Lol

Let's just be happy with a minor victory. We don't get a lot of them.

flashguy

If you put a bump stock on with a Rare Breed Trigger do you get a double-machine-gun?

I wonder what else the guy was charged with?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
The case from the latest article effects members of the military. But AFAIK, there are still conflicting rulings in different federal circuits. So can people living in the 6th Circuit legally possess bump stocks, but people in the other circuits can't. Is that current situation?

Yes, can be binding in that circuit, but not in others.

And why the Supreme Court is likely to end up ruling on this as several cases on the bump stock have already made it to the SC.

ATF appeals 5th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court on 4-6-2023

^^^^^^^^
Re: “46-2023”. Maybe “4-6-2023” ?