BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,318
    Some of the arguments are clearly throw-aways. I think the real fight is over the determination in contradiction of the words of the law, the ex post facto nature, and the denial of compensation.

    The head-hurter will be the precedent set in the Akins Accelerator affair. Same sort of thing - the AA was essentially a 10/22 bump stock with a spring. ATF initially ruled it not NFA, then reversed themselves...and refused to pay compensation. And the courts went along. But that didn't go to SCOTUS.

    The other joker in the deck is the possibility of the Government requesting that the court direct use of the NFA'34 amnesty power to register bump stocks. There's long been a dispute over whether or not 922(o) overrides the original amnesty power. A court order would go a long way to solving that issue...and set up a badly needed amnesty/re-registration.
     

    Schipperke

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 19, 2013
    18,540
    Yep. If you would have told me just a few years ago DC would be Shall Issue before MD I would have pointed and laughed at you like you were a porn star with a micropenis.

    You would have had me at Illinois..
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

    https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...g-Trump-Bump-Stock-Ban-Injunction-Sought.html

    Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law ...

    Frosh is using a similar argument in an attempt to protect Obamacare ...

    https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=229479

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...622736-03b4-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html

    The Trump administration refused to say Wednesday whether acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker is directly involved in discussions about the future of the Affordable Care Act in a case challenging the validity of Whitaker’s appointment.

    Justice Department attorney Hashim M. Mooppan defended the appointment of Whitaker, who served as chief of staff to the previous attorney general, Jeff Sessions, as “sensible and reasonable” and said Congress has given the president the power to decide how to fill temporary vacancies.

    The legal wrangling over Whitaker’s appointment is part of a broader lawsuit seeking to force the Trump administration to uphold a key section of the Affordable Care Act.

    The Maryland Attorney General wants Whitaker removed from the position where he can make decisions on behalf of the federal government about the health-care litigation.

    ...

    “We are being subjected to the actions and influences of an unconstitutional decision-maker,” he [someone from Frosh's office] said.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    “We are being subjected to the actions and influences of an unconstitutional decision-maker,” he [someone from Frosh's office] said.

    Enough irony to attract a magnet.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    There’s a reason DC is shall issue now, and it sure as hell ain’t cause the legislature wanted it that way.

    it sure isn't the district court either, which is way left on guns.

    DC would have won and kept may issue if it had been the full panel of the district court.

    What happened there was DC's arguments for may issue were different than Maryland, NJ etc. The made the huge mistake of formally arguing a 'rights rationing" rational which would have killed them in SCOTUS so they didn't care about the the

    Trump did not make a rights rationing argument. This suite against his bump stock ban doesn't have a prayer.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    So is the destruction or submit to the ATF date still sometime around March 21, 2019?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    Yep. If you would have told me just a few years ago DC would be Shall Issue before MD I would have pointed and laughed at you like you were a porn star with a micropenis.

    I said the same thing when Illinois fell. Poor Maryland, surrounded by carry states, and yet... .
     

    FrankZ

    Liberty = Responsibility
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 25, 2012
    3,334
    I said the same thing when Illinois fell. Poor Maryland, surrounded by carry states, and yet... .

    At least we can sit in safety in MD and watch the blood flow in the streets in all those shall issue states around us. Frosh keeping us safe. :mad54:
     

    Jake4U

    Now with 67% more FJB
    Sep 1, 2018
    1,150
    So is the destruction or submit to the ATF date still sometime around March 21, 2019?

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

    Bump. A stock reply that's not destructive.

    Responded so we can keep your question on the first page. I've looked at the websites of the organizations that filed, but not seeing anything recent.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...istrict-court-judge-oks-trump-bump-stock-ban/

    The judge denied a preliminary injunction see ruling https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv2988-27

    Given the ruling, I am not sure the case was really argued correctly. The BATF definition of a bump stock is technically consistent with the definition of a machine gun. What remains to be seen is whether there are any "bump stocks" that meet the BATF definition. I don't believe that there are any bump stocks that meet the BATF definition because they do not operate in accordance with that definition.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Bump. A stock reply that's not destructive.

    Responded so we can keep your question on the first page. I've looked at the websites of the organizations that filed, but not seeing anything recent.

    turn in date is the 26th
    We are going to try to get argument at the Circuit Court on the 22nd
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Is this the GOA one, or a different one? There appears to be a few filed.

    It is a different one, there were at least three cases, two in DC and one in MI. The two DC cases got consolidated. The oral arguments for the DC case is on the 22nd. They had previous oral arguments for the preliminary injuction.

    The GOA case is in MI, the oral arguments for the preliminary injunction are scheduled for the 6th https://gunowners.org/alert22119/
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,308
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom