Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[2A_Tom]

If lawsuits were expected.

President Trump remarks after ATF confirms that bump stocks do not make semi-auto weapons full-auto, "The DOJ has spoken."

 

[worddoer]

Bumpstock Ban Vacated???

Ran across this and found it encouraging. But only seems to apply in the federal 10th circuit states? At least, that is how I understand it.

Article: https://www.guns.com/news/bump-stock-ruling-vacated-to-be-reheard

Video:

[video=youtube;xhEffnEzXbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhEffnEzXbw[/video]

 

[KLB]

Ran across this and found it encouraging. But only seems to apply in the federal 10th circuit states? At least, that is how I understand it.

Article: https://www.guns.com/news/bump-stock-ruling-vacated-to-be-reheard

Video:

[video=youtube;xhEffnEzXbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhEffnEzXbw[/video]

This one may make it to the USSC. There are at least a couple of justices that want to reel in Chevron.

 

[HoughMade]

Based on the article alone, and not having read the decision itself, it appears not to have been vacated at this time, though it is a step in that direction.

[ETA]

The order

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-4036.pdf

I was right.

So here's the progression:

1. Regulation is made.
2. Challenge to regulation in District Court (trial court)
3. Challenge denied- regulation stands.
4. Appeal to 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of denial of challenge
5. Denial upheld, challenge still denied.
6. Motion for rehearing en banc
7. Motion for rehearing granted, decision at #5 vacated, order for more briefing.

So, it is now as if the original decision of the Court of Appeals never happened (#5), but then it drops back to the decision before that which was denial of the challenge by the District Court. The court en banc, meaning all of the judges instead of only 3 judges, will now hear additional arguments and decide if the regulation is valid.

In other words- hold your horses. There at least​ one more level...likely another after that (SCOTUS) regardless of who wins next.

 

[Ingomike]

Based on the article alone, and not having read the decision itself, it appears not to have been vacated at this time, though it is a step in that direction.

[ETA]

The order

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-4036.pdf

I was right.

So here's the progression:

1. Regulation is made.
2. Challenge to regulation in District Court (trial court)
3. Challenge denied- regulation stands.
4. Appeal to 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of denial of challenge
5. Denial upheld, challenge still denied.
6. Motion for rehearing en banc
7. Motion for rehearing granted, decision at #5 vacated, order for more briefing.

So, it is now as if the original decision of the Court of Appeals never happened (#5), but then it drops back to the decision before that which was denial of the challenge by the District Court. The court en banc, meaning all of the judges instead of only 3 judges, will now hear additional arguments and decide if the regulation is valid.

In other words- hold your horses. There at least​ one more level...likely another after that (SCOTUS) regardless of who wins next.

It used to be "journalists" did not practice law, by explaining the actions of courts, they sought out the experts, then presented what they found.

Thanks for sharing expertise here...

 

[ghitch75]

Based on the article alone, and not having read the decision itself, it appears not to have been vacated at this time, though it is a step in that direction.

[ETA]

The order

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-4036.pdf

I was right.

So here's the progression:

1. Regulation is made.
2. Challenge to regulation in District Court (trial court)
3. Challenge denied- regulation stands.
4. Appeal to 10th Circuit Court of Appeals of denial of challenge
5. Denial upheld, challenge still denied.
6. Motion for rehearing en banc
7. Motion for rehearing granted, decision at #5 vacated, order for more briefing.

So, it is now as if the original decision of the Court of Appeals never happened (#5), but then it drops back to the decision before that which was denial of the challenge by the District Court. The court en banc, meaning all of the judges instead of only 3 judges, will now hear additional arguments and decide if the regulation is valid.

In other words- hold your horses. There at least​ one more level...likely another after that (SCOTUS) regardless of who wins next.

so for us that don't know the lingo could it get thrown out???

 

[MCgrease08]

so for us that don't know the lingo could it get thrown out???

Yes. During the new en banc 10th Circuit Court hearing they could rule against .gov and throw it out. Then it would be up to .gov to decide whether or not they want to appeal to SCOTUS.

My hope for best case scenario would be that the court overturns the ban and at that point Trump would be entering his second term and let it die.

 

[ghitch75]

Yes. During the new en banc 10th Circuit Court hearing they could rule against .gov and throw it out. Then it would be up to .gov to decide whether or not they want to appeal to SCOTUS.

My hope for best case scenario would be that the court overturns the ban and at that point Trump would be entering his second term and let it die.

ok thank you....

 

[Hohn]

This one may make it to the USSC. There are at least a couple of justices that want to reel in Chevron.

Chevron is a fundamental violation of article 1 vesting ALL legislative powers to Congress. If Congress’ intent is unclear, the right thing is strike down the law and force CONGRESS to clarify. Otherwise bureaucracy in the executive branch is making law *and* interpreting it. It’s utterly destructive of separation of powers.

 

[HoughMade]

Chevron is a fundamental violation of article 1 vesting ALL legislative powers to Congress. If Congress’ intent is unclear, the right thing is strike down the law and force CONGRESS to clarify. Otherwise bureaucracy in the executive branch is making law *and* interpreting it. It’s utterly destructive of separation of powers.

I agree 100%.