The oral arguments for Guedes v ATF have not been held yet. They just got permission to change the oral argument date, but that date has not been set.
The main case in the Fed Circuit is McCutchen v. US. Three Modern Sportsman v USA is identical to McCutchen. While these two cases are bump stock related, they are not disputing the regulations. They are simply making a 5A takings claim.
It is Codrea, not Correa and this case is on hold pending resolution of McCutchen. It was being litigated alongside Guedes in the DC Circuit, but they moved to the Fed Circuit for appeal. I suspect they are moving forward with the takings claim, which is why they moved circuits and why it is on hold.
Thanks for the update. Was a typo with stupid autocorrect with Codrea.
I was just pointing out various cases filed, that’s all.
While I fully agree with the takings clause and it being a violation. I just don’t believe the 5A reason of the Takings clause sadly won’t be enough to win this and get the bump stock ban overturn. I don’t see us winning sadly either based on the 2A reason as well. Sadly I think the only thing that will get it overturned is Chevron Defference.
Which whole nice on the service, and would work in getting the law invalidated.
The problem is, I’d that’s the reason. Congress could write new law to pass a law to ban bump stocks, if they do, Chevron Defference won’t work to invalidate the new law.
We really need a case that wins based on the 2A and or 5A. But even if we win based on the 5A, it could still be banned. And not involve the 5A if you put in a grandfather clause.
So if we want a true invalidation that will cover most anything, we need to win based entirely on the 2A