GOA and FPC file cases challenging bump stock ban

wolfwood · Dec 18, 2018

Gunowners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition are INDEPENDENTLY filing

lawsuits. FPC filed theirs today and it looks like GOA is filing their tomorrow

These cases will likely be consolidated so one thread will do.

This is the preliminary injunction filed by FPC

. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ents/original/1545161072/2-MPI.pdf?1545161072

This is a link to all the pleadings.
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/guedes-v-batfe

I'll update when GOA files there case.

If you want to support GOA's lawsuit here is a link to donate. \\

https://www.gunowners.com/contribute

SRD · Dec 18, 2018

Rab1515 · Dec 18, 2018

If we get an honest judge we have a shot. But I'm not sure we can get that as evidenced by the ruling against us in MD.

Rack&Roll · Dec 18, 2018

Phil Van Cleve of Virginia Citizens Defense League was the MD Handgun Permit Review Board tonight to get his MD W&C permit restrictions lifted.

He told me after winning his case that the VCDL is backing the suit in a major way through GOA.

danb · Dec 19, 2018

This lawsuit does not seem to be challenging the bump stock ban on 2nd amendment grounds either. I see some administrative and statutory authority challenges. No claim bump stocks are protected under the 2nd amendment.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Dec 19, 2018

danb said:
This lawsuit does not seem to be challenging the bump stock ban on 2nd amendment grounds either. I see some administrative and statutory authority challenges. No claim bump stocks are protected under the 2nd amendment.

I think you’re right. Kinda strange since they otherwise are throwing in the kitchen sink.

I do find interesting that count I challenges whitakers appointment, which is the exact same position froshhole has taken in his Obamacare lawsuit.

Inigoes · Dec 19, 2018

danb said:
This lawsuit does not seem to be challenging the bump stock ban on 2nd amendment grounds either. I see some administrative and statutory authority challenges. No claim bump stocks are protected under the 2nd amendment.

CrabcakesAndFootball said:
I think you’re right. Kinda strange since they otherwise are throwing in the kitchen sink.

I do find interesting that count I challenges whitakers appointment, which is the exact same position froshhole has taken in his Obamacare lawsuit.

The only 2A right recognized by the courts so far, is in the home. Whether we like it, or not.

Using the commerce and takings clauses has more legal might behind them.

HaveBlue · Dec 19, 2018

Inigoes said:
The only 2A right recognized by the courts so far, is in the home. Whether we like it, or not.

Using the commerce and takings clauses has more legal might behind them.

What about a bump stock in the home?

Inigoes · Dec 20, 2018

lol

That is a tough argument trying to create a final line of protective fire because you have nowhere to fall back to. Spewing crazy amount of bullets at your attacker, versus well aimed shots would be a hard sale to get a judge to accept.

MDEXPAT · Dec 20, 2018

If anything, they'll probably say its not protected by the Second Amendment because its "not a firearm" but only a "device" or "accessory".

I think ATF's reasoning for not offering an amnesty registration period, is that they would probably be swamped w/ people going out and buying up the available supply just to give them an administrative enema. Plus it could - could mind you - result in people wanting to amnesty register some other things and when told "no", open ATF to legal challenges via "Equal representation". Not saying it would happen or even work. Just sayin....

The BIG concern I have is that Trump used Executive Powers to arbitrarily ban bump stocks. If that's allowed to stand as Constitutional, then the next Democrat President could use it as legal grounds to just ban any class of firearms via Executive Powers. We could go to bed being legal owners of anything and through not fault of our own, wake up as felons.

Atlasarmory · Jan 10, 2019

Tagged to follow

Kicken Wing · Jan 14, 2019

MDEXPAT said:
If anything, they'll probably say its not protected by the Second Amendment because its "not a firearm" but only a "device" or "accessory".

I think ATF's reasoning for not offering an amnesty registration period, is that they would probably be swamped w/ people going out and buying up the available supply just to give them an administrative enema. Plus it could - could mind you - result in people wanting to amnesty register some other things and when told "no", open ATF to legal challenges via "Equal representation". Not saying it would happen or even work. Just sayin....

The BIG concern I have is that Trump used Executive Powers to arbitrarily ban bump stocks. If that's allowed to stand as Constitutional, then the next Democrat President could use it as legal grounds to just ban any class of firearms via Executive Powers. We could go to bed being legal owners of anything and through not fault of our own, wake up as felons.

Administrative enema... I am stealing that line! Look how long it took for the ATF to send back the "reject letters". Just imagine how long it would take them to approve all devices applied for.

Inigoes · Dec 11, 2019

Sixth Circuit Hears Debate Over Legality of Bump Stocks

https://www.courthousenews.com/sixth-circuit-hears-debate-over-legality-of-bump-stocks/

wolfwood · Dec 13, 2019

GOA's bumpstock oral arguments are up
link below

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/int... Owners of America Inc v William P Barr et al

DivingDriver · Dec 13, 2019

Thanks Wolf!

HaveBlue · Dec 14, 2019

Great to hear it Wolfwood!!

GOA and FPC file cases challenging bump stock ban

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Ultimate Member

R.I.P

dont be a dumbass

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

HaveBlue

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Snakes and Sparklers

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

HaveBlue

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics