Bump stock ruling vacated, to be reheard

[The Annoyed Man]

https://www.guns.com/news/bump-stock-ru ... be-reheard

The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, which takes issue with how government regulators moved to outlaw the devices in 2018.

While a 2-1 panel of the same court previously upheld the ban in May by relying in part on what is referred to as the Chevron deference, which allows courts to default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statues, Judge Joel Carson III, a President Trump appointee, dissented at the time, describing the ban as an overreach, saying, “turning a blind eye to the government’s request and applying Chevron anyway—the majority placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government."

Now, the full 12-judge court will rehear the challenge, with a special focus on if and how Chevron applies.

“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision," said Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA. "Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach."

It will be interesting to see what develops.

[bagman45]

That's really great to hear. Hopefully the full court will do a more appropriate analysis of the order and recognize it's absolute over-reach. If one random thing can be arbitrarily banned by the POTUS or any government "agency", ANYTHING can be arbitrarily banned....

[The Annoyed Man]

That's really great to hear. Hopefully the full court will do a more appropriate analysis of the order and recognize it's absolute over-reach. If one random thing can be arbitrarily banned by the POTUS or any government "agency", ANYTHING can be arbitrarily banned....

Yeah, I have no desire to own one, but I agree that the original ruling was absolutely An agency over-reach that needed to go through Congress if our rulers are determined to ban them. Yes, I said "rulers", because I don’t see anything truly representative about Congress these days. Despite my personal lack of desire for one, I believe they should be legal and unrestricted.

[ELB]

I wondered at the time if Trump teed up the bumpstock ban just to get a case like this into the system.

Many have suspected the EPA and other federal agencies with colluding with certain non-profit groups to use lawsuits to extend their power beyond that they could get from Congress. Suppose an agency wants to meddle in something that they can't get Congress to go along with because of those dang republicans. It's convenient if an outside group sues them under some theory that if you squint hard enough the existing law really does cover it and if the agency doesn't have this power the planet will die/existing situation is discriminatory against minority populations/other "civil rights violation"/whatever. File your case in DC where (up until the Trump era) you are pretty much guaranteed to have a judge who doesn't think there is such a thing as too much government power and regulation. The agency puts up a pro forma defense, loses, and is now ordered by the court to do whatever it is they really wanted to do in the first place so they don't appeal, and now they have new regulatory power based on court rulings. The agency and their "opponents" in court go out and have a nice dinner.

So many people think Trump is just the reactive child who never thinks ahead and are constantly surprised when stuff happens like peace treaties in the middle east, he puts both Russia and China on their back feet, new alliances against foes of the US, the economy takes off like a rocket, etc. He ican see far ahead, is pretty devious, and is willing to take the heat by doing something now that garners a lot of negative attention, but simultaneously distracts (his enemies and nearly as often his friends) and facilitates (a long term goal).

Killing chevron deference, trimming the ATF's regulatory powers, and extending the 2A might very well have been the strategic goal all along.

[bagman45]

ELB....BINGO!!!! If we can just get 4 more years of Trump, We The People will at least roll back the Leftist agenda by a decade or more. And, if, God willing, another WARRIOR like Trump will emerge to continue his battle against the evil that is working DAILY to destroy the USA and relegate us all into the history books as just another failed country.

[crazy2medic]

I believe within 6mos of Trump's reelection RBG will finally step down, within 2yrs John Roberts will follow!

[howdy]

Liberals Breyer is 82 and Ginsberg is 87. Conservatives Roberts (sortof), is 65, Alito is 70 and Thomas is 72.

[jason812]

within 2yrs John Roberts will follow!

One can only hope.

[flechero]

Yeah, I have no desire to own one, but I agree that the original ruling was absolutely An agency over-reach

Totally agree and since I'm so far out of the loop- what was the original effect of the ban- were people destroying them, turning in, buyback, etc??

[The Annoyed Man]

Yeah, I have no desire to own one, but I agree that the original ruling was absolutely An agency over-reach

Totally agree and since I'm so far out of the loop- what was the original effect of the ban- were people destroying them, turning in, buyback, etc??

Since they weren’t "registered" to begin with, I suspect that most people just buried them under the back shed against a future need, or perhaps lost them in tragic boating accidents.

[flechero]

I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?

[crazy2medic]

I believe within 6mos of Trump's reelection RBG will finally step down, within 2yrs John Roberts will follow!

Looks like she won't have to step down! She got called home!

[srothstein]

I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?

Yes, they became illegal to own, so the ruling said it must be destroyed or turned in to the police for destruction.

[The Annoyed Man]

I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?

Yes, they became illegal to own, so the ruling said it must be destroyed or turned in to the police for destruction.

Granted. But I have to wonder how many were actually turned in/destroyed. I don’t have one. Never did, as I personally see no use for them other than for entertainment purposes. (I’m not that easily entertained.) That said, they were not a registered item. EVEN IF law enforcement decided to track down credit card receipts from those vendors that sold them online, there’s no way to prove that a bumpstock buyer still has his bumpstock.

"Where’s your bumpstock?"

"I destroyed it, like I was told to."

"Show us the pieces."

"Are you kidding me? I cut it up into pieces and burned it on March 24, 2019, two days before the deadline! There’s LITERALLY no pieces left! Have a nice day, Mein Herr."

[NotRPB]

I guess I should have asked it this way- Did the "ban" call for them to be turned in or destroyed?

Yes, they became illegal to own, so the ruling said it must be destroyed or turned in to the police for destruction.

Somewhere I read some Eminent Domain thingy or maybe some country's constitution where some government couldn't deprive a person of property without just compensation. I never owned one but how much was each person paid ? I missed that news. I may have some other Country in mind.