Court says that bump stock isn't a machine gun
- The Annoyed Man
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
- Has liked: 30 times
- Liked: 118 times
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:39 pm
- Location: Luling
- Has liked: 76 times
- Liked: 67 times
I just wanted to point out that this is the first case I know of that actually looked at the rule. Even the dissent did not look at the rule itself, just whether or not they should just accept the claim of the ATF (what is called Chevron Deference based on a SCOTUS decision in a 1984 case).
I have to look up and see exactly what this means now. Does Chevron deference go to a criminal trial? Or does the prosecutor need to actually prove the law in a criminal trial over the bureaucrats interpretation?
I have to look up and see exactly what this means now. Does Chevron deference go to a criminal trial? Or does the prosecutor need to actually prove the law in a criminal trial over the bureaucrats interpretation?
Steve Rothstein
- The Annoyed Man
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
- Has liked: 30 times
- Liked: 118 times
I’m assuming that, if the prosecution is dumb enough to move forward, the first thing the defense will do is to introduce the appellate court's decision into the trial record. Then if the prosecutor is dumb enough to not throw in the towel, then either the judge will dismiss the case, or the jury will probably acquit the defendant. And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:51 pm I just wanted to point out that this is the first case I know of that actually looked at the rule. Even the dissent did not look at the rule itself, just whether or not they should just accept the claim of the ATF (what is called Chevron Deference based on a SCOTUS decision in a 1984 case).
I have to look up and see exactly what this means now. Does Chevron deference go to a criminal trial? Or does the prosecutor need to actually prove the law in a criminal trial over the bureaucrats interpretation?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
This is nice, but it's not over yet. Ultimately, what we need is the courts to tell the federal agencies to stop grossly interpreting legislation and changing their minds on how to enforce said legislation. Making legislation is Congress's job. The ATF is merely a policing agency with the DOJ being their prosecuting attorneys.
When the ATF said that bump stocks are illegal, they are saying that they will interpret 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) to include bump stocks, even though it doesn't make sense, and extend that guidance to other law enforcement agencies to interpret it the same way. They never rewrote it. They never made it a law. They could've also easily given enforcement guidance that said all canned iced teas shall be considered AOWs under 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) on a similar pretense.
On a related note we almost got a criminal court case that would have legalized bump stocks back in November. Unfortunately, the federal prosecutors withdrew the charge against the Houston guy. If they went through with it, and the man was found not guilty of possession, it would've made the ATF's bump stock guidance meaningless due to case law.
When the ATF said that bump stocks are illegal, they are saying that they will interpret 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) to include bump stocks, even though it doesn't make sense, and extend that guidance to other law enforcement agencies to interpret it the same way. They never rewrote it. They never made it a law. They could've also easily given enforcement guidance that said all canned iced teas shall be considered AOWs under 26 U.S.C. 5845(e) on a similar pretense.
On a related note we almost got a criminal court case that would have legalized bump stocks back in November. Unfortunately, the federal prosecutors withdrew the charge against the Houston guy. If they went through with it, and the man was found not guilty of possession, it would've made the ATF's bump stock guidance meaningless due to case law.
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
- The Annoyed Man
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
- Has liked: 30 times
- Liked: 118 times
We can always hope.AndyC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 amCan we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
- 03Lightningrocks
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:30 pm
- Location: Plano
- Has liked: 160 times
- Liked: 69 times
Well we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:05 pmWe can always hope.AndyC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 amCan we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:43 pm
- Has liked: 149 times
- Liked: 63 times
yep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pmWell we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
Retired Navy (1983-2004), Native Texan living in the piney woods
Or, he's compromised by his own ego, and his desire to have a court legacy that isn't extreme one way or the other. Not even if he has to flip positions to keep things "neutral".powerboatr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:07 pmyep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pmWell we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
What do I miss about Texas? Most of the food, some of the people, absolutely none of the weather.