ATF admits no legal authority in Bump Stock decision

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • 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!
  • Lilboog82

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Oct 26, 2014
    541
    43
    Indiana
    I wonder if the ban gets over turned will the government reimburse all the lawfully compliant people who destroyed their bumpstocks back the amount it costs to replace the ones they were told to destroy? Unfortunately I doubt it.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    The ATF's filing does not appear to be available, but based on the NCLA brief, that doesn't say what they say it says.

    There really isn't a concession, but the NCLA - to it's credit - is trying to make it appear to be so.

    The ATF appears to be defending the bumpstock ban as an interpretive exercise, rather than actually making a rule or "legislating." That's really the only defense they have.

    If the court of appeals determines that the rule was legislative, then the NCLA would win anyway. But now, the ATF agrees that if it was legislative, they would lose. Both sides have defined the field of battle: whether the ATF bumpstock ban was the proper application of the authority to interpret statutes. Twice, in completely different directions.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    The ATF's filing does not appear to be available, but based on the NCLA brief, that doesn't say what they say it says.

    There really isn't a concession, but the NCLA - to it's credit - is trying to make it appear to be so.

    The ATF appears to be defending the bumpstock ban as an interpretive exercise, rather than actually making a rule or "legislating." That's really the only defense they have.

    If the court of appeals determines that the rule was legislative, then the NCLA would win anyway. But now, the ATF agrees that if it was legislative, they would lose. Both sides have defined the field of battle: whether the ATF bumpstock ban was the proper application of the authority to interpret statutes. Twice, in completely different directions.

    This.

    The ATF is saying that it is not legislative rule making it is simply interpreting a law that already existed.

    This is a pretty common argument tactic, but I think that when "interpretation" goes well beyond what was contemplated at the time the law)was made and does not fall under what the law was always interpreted to mean, it is clearly legislating.
     

    Butch627

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jan 3, 2012
    1,698
    83
    NWI
    I wonder if the ban gets over turned will the government reimburse all the lawfully compliant people who destroyed their bumpstocks back the amount it costs to replace the ones they were told to destroy? Unfortunately I doubt it.
    Any links to people actually destroying their bumpstocks ? Doesn't seem fair to expect them to be reimbursed if they didn't document the destruction of the ones they had
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    What does that matter? Is that now a litmus test for legal vs. illegal?


    Handguns are used all the time in crimes, so should those be banned?

    Exactly. Semi-autos with 30 round (or larger) magazines can kill more people faster that a lever action or bolt action....so? That's what makes them effective for self-defense. As we all know, they've been used in plenty of crimes.

    We could make a list of incidents when the "good guys" wished they were as well armed as the bad guys. Why shouldn't they be?
     

    SmileDocHill

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    61   0   0
    Mar 26, 2009
    6,159
    113
    Westfield
    Exactly. Semi-autos with 30 round (or larger) magazines can kill more people faster that a lever action or bolt action....so? That's what makes them effective for self-defense. As we all know, they've been used in plenty of crimes.

    We could make a list of incidents when the "good guys" wished they were as well armed as the bad guys. Why shouldn't they be?

    "Right, which is why we should disarm everyone. That way we can end ALL the shootings."

    -Every liberal ever.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    What does that matter? Is that now a litmus test for legal vs. illegal?


    Handguns are used all the time in crimes, so should those be banned?

    That was actually the original goal of the Brady Campaign, formerly The National Council to Control Handguns.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I took that from the Wiki page. There is no guarantee that anything will be accurate or even true.

    I didn't want to go from mem...

    What word was i looking for?
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    I took that from the Wiki page. There is no guarantee that anything will be accurate or even true.

    I didn't want to go from mem...

    What word was i looking for?

    I wasn't saying you were wrong. they changed name a few times over the years. I meant to emphasize your point that handguns were the target.
     
    Top Bottom