5th Circuit Bump Stock Case

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!

    • Register Log in
    A

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,154
    Anne Arundel County
    jcutonilli said:
    Apparently the 5th Circuit has issued an opinion in their bump stock case.

    https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...inal/1639511563/Cargill_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf

    Yet another loss.
    Click to expand...

    And once again Chevron Deference to agency interpretation is inappropriately used with a regulation that has potential criminal penalties, and where the agency has clearly made a mistake in interpretation in the past. Or is it the present interpretation that's wrong? It can't go both ways with any logical consistency.

    Justice Thomas owes the US an apology for Chevron. He seems to realize now he helped create a monster that's gobbled up legislative and judicial authority.
     
    camo556

    camo556

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Allen65 said:
    And once again Chevron Deference to agency interpretation is inappropriately used with a regulation that has potential criminal penalties, and where the agency has clearly made a mistake in interpretation in the past. Or is it the present interpretation that's wrong? It can't go both ways with any logical consistency.

    Justice Thomas owes the US an apology for Chevron. He seems to realize now he helped create a monster that's gobbled up legislative and judicial authority.
    Click to expand...

    No.

    Fifth concludes that the ATF interpretation is the best interpretation of the statue and reject the "mechanistic" interpretation of the dissent in the 10th.

    Because we conclude that bump stocks are “machinegun” under the best interpretation of the statute, we do not address whether the Rule is entitled to deference. See Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106, 114 (2002) (explaining that “there is no occasion to defer and no point in asking what kind of deference, or how much” would apply in cases where an agency has adopted “the position we would adopt even if there were no formal rule and we were interpreting the statute from scratch”).
    Click to expand...


    This was unanimous, by the 5th, the most conservative circuit. This does not bode well for any SC review. Even if they do take it, which seems unlikely, this is a path to uphold bump stocks under the "best interpretation."
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    camo556 said:
    No.

    Fifth concludes that the ATF interpretation is the best interpretation of the statue and reject the "mechanistic" interpretation of the dissent in the 10th.



    This was unanimous, by the 5th, the most conservative circuit. This does not bode well for any SC review. Even if they do take it, which seems unlikely, this is a path to uphold bump stocks under the "best interpretation."
    Click to expand...

    It was unanimous because it was poorly argued by the plaintiffs and the makeup of the court was all democrat appointed Judges.

    Cargill offers no reason why firearms that require the shooter to maintain pressure on the trigger function “automatically” but firearms that require the shooter to maintain pressure on the barrel of the gun do not.
    Click to expand...

    It seems simple to me. The maintenance of the pressure on the trigger has to do with the single function/pull of the trigger and nothing to do with the self acting mechanism while the trigger is activated. The external pressure on the barrel demonstrates that the mechanism is not SELF-ACTING. It requires some external mechanism to function.

    The rule of lenity is not how you should justify why your interpretation is the best interpretation. There is enough justification provided by the record to justify that the ATF has made arbitrary decisions about the single function of the trigger and the definition of "automatically". They acknowledge a binary trigger only has one function of the trigger per round fired. They also acknowledge that manual bump firing does not occur automatically. They need to contradict their own decisions in order to reach the conclusions they do.
     
    J

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    press1280 said:
    So how many different interpretations do we have from the appeals courts so far?
    Click to expand...

    I would say 1.25. All (5th, 6th, 10th, and DC) all have determined that the ATF interpretation is acceptable. The opinions in the 6th, 10th and DC seem to have a very similar basis based on Chevron. The 5th does not cite Chevron but makes similar determinations.
     
    smokey

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,503
    Screenshot_20220624-005149_DuckDuckGo.jpg



    law.justia.com

    Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2022)

    Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016 (5th Cir. 2022) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    law.justia.com law.justia.com

    Whoa
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Citadel Firearms Training MD banner ad

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,402
    Messages
    7,280,317
    Members
    33,450
    Latest member
    angel45z

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom