Bump Stock 6th Circuit Appeal Decision

[The Lone Ranger]

Attached for those interested to read it....

GOA v Garland.pdf

[TSMGguy]

What this means:

 

Federal Bump Stock Ban Blocked by Divided Appeals Court (bloomberglaw.com)

[ppgcowboy]

What will be interesting is how much will slide fire be compensated for the closing of its company, plus other companies that make such devices? How will the owners of these devices be compensated for the ones they destroyed?

[johnsonlmg41]

What it means is that two other courts have taken it up and ruled differently, thus it's likely to go to the supreme court. In a reading of the dissent on p59 are troubling words "the statute contains a gap for the agency to fill" Translation, if congress forgot it, any un-elected agency bureaucrat can fill in the gap to alter their personal interpretation of made up agency rules of a vague criminal statute and that should automatically be law by Chevron deference since the implication is that the agency is smarter than congress or the people that elected them, thus they are able to act in any manner they deem fit. This is what happened here, they looked at the stocks, said they were OK for years, then arbitrarily made up a new rule (with no input or legislative law from congress) and decided to enforce it with criminal penaties never authorized by congress. This is where we are headed on many fronts.

[Robert Henley]

Skimming through the court decision, it is not a surprise to me.

 

The following court excerpt was clear to me when the former president signed his Executive Order:

 

"It is not the role of the executive— particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong."

 

The following court excerpt also was equally clear to me:

 

"Congress could amend the statute tomorrow to criminalize bump-stock ownership, if it so wished; indeed, some states have done just that."

 

I believe it would have been a fairly straight forward process for Congress to have passed a law to ban bump stocks and the president to have signed into law.

 

If they could not get the legislative support to do so then arguably, as the court decision clearly and logically explains, it should not be a crime.