Court says that bump stock isn't a machine gun

1911 vs Glock. The answer is obvious...
Post Reply
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Liked: 105 times

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” —George Washington

A desire for peace does not imply submission to those who chose to be violent as their first resort.
srothstein
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:39 pm
Location: Luling
Has liked: 54 times
Liked: 60 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?
Steve Rothstein
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Liked: 105 times

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?
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.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” —George Washington

A desire for peace does not imply submission to those who chose to be violent as their first resort.
strogg
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 2:51 pm
Has liked: 19 times
Liked: 93 times

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.
User avatar
AndyC
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 8:45 pm
Has liked: 47 times
Liked: 66 times

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.
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:28 pm
Has liked: 26 times
Liked: 105 times

AndyC wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 am
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.
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?
We can always hope.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” —George Washington

A desire for peace does not imply submission to those who chose to be violent as their first resort.
User avatar
03Lightningrocks
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:30 pm
Location: Plano
Has liked: 148 times
Liked: 62 times

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:05 pm
AndyC wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 am
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.
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?
We can always hope.
Well we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
powerboatr
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 4:43 pm
Has liked: 123 times
Liked: 49 times

03Lightningrocks wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:05 pm
AndyC wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 am
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?
We can always hope.
Well we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
yep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff
Retired Navy (1983-2004), Native Texan living in the piney woods
KBCraig
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:41 pm
Has liked: 52 times
Liked: 35 times

powerboatr wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:07 pm
03Lightningrocks wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:05 pm
We can always hope.
Well we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
yep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff
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".
What do I miss about Texas? Most of the food, some of the people, absolutely none of the weather.
Post Reply