Guedes v Garland (DC Circuit Bump Stock Case)

[jcutonilli]

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals just released their opinion in the Guedes v Garland case. It appears to be another loss.

 

[Boondock Saint]

As I skim this nonsense, I have come across the following idiocy:

Accordingly, under the best interpretation of the statute, a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger. As such, it is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[jcutonilli]

As I skim this nonsense, I have come across the following idiocy:



That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

That is how they believe it works. They are stupid and do not even know what the word pull means.

This definition would remove what Plaintiffs would describe as a prototypical machine gun from the realm of “automatic,” as the
shooter must both pull the trigger and keep his finger depressed on the trigger to continue firing. Once the force is removed from the trigger, firing ceases.

The force on the trigger is the pull, but they do not bother to understand that. They do not seem to grasp what a trigger is, they don't define it or understand what it is. They do define automatically, but fail to understand what it means. They use self-regulating, which does not correctly describe what automatically means in this context.

 

[Boondock Saint]

That is how they believe it works. They are stupid and do not even know what the word pull means.



The force on the trigger is the pull, but they do not bother to understand that. They do not seem to grasp what a trigger is, they don't define it or understand what it is. They do define automatically, but fail to understand what it means. They use self-regulating, which does not correctly describe what automatically means in this context.

Time to turn on the Bat Signal?

 

[swinokur]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[delaware_export]

Didn’t Thomas address this to some extent bruen?

i recall something to the effect of .. we‘re not experts trying to understand these things… it seems the court didn’t understand this thing AND didn’t let lack of understanding get in the way.

 

[Inigoes]

Didn’t Thomas address this to some extent bruen?

i recall something to the effect of .. we‘re not experts trying to understand these things… it seems the court didn’t understand this thing AND didn’t let lack of understanding get in the way.

Not NYSRPA v Bruen

More like WV v EPA

 

[Kharn]

The panel was horrible.

Their focus on the physical trigger interacting with the hammer instead of the hypothetical electronic trigger (switch) driving a device to activate the firearm's physical trigger is laughable.

"A single function" cannot include "pull the trigger as it moves into contact with the finger AND push forward on the barrel at all times." That's two functions. If the bump stocks had a rubbery finger attached to them entering the trigger guard, so all the user had to do was push forward on the barrel to cause it to fire, then the pushing motion would be the new trigger and they would have more of a leg to stand on.

 

[jcutonilli]

On Sept 23 the Appellants (Guedes) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Today the Court requested a response be filed. It is a step in the right direction, but it does not guarantee one will be granted.

 

[babalou]

On Sept 23 the Appellants (Guedes) filed a petition for rehearing en banc. Today the Court requested a response be filed. It is a step in the right direction, but it does not guarantee one will be granted.

 

[jcutonilli]

The Court denied the petition for rehearing en banc back in May. They are now petitioning for cert with SCOTUS along with the Cargill case (5th circuit)

Search