Trump's Bump Stock Ban Just Lost Big in Federal Court

“It is not the role of the executive—particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate” the terms of criminal law, said the 6th Circuit.


After the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, President Donald Trump vowed to use executive power to ban bump stocks, a type of firearm accessory that the shooter reportedly used. The Department of Justice carried out Trump's wishes in 2018 by issuing a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule "to clarify that [bump stocks] are 'machineguns' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968" because "such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." Put differently, the federal government began to reinterpret the federal ban on machine guns to ban bump stocks too.

That unilateral executive action was promptly challenged in federal court. As part of its defense, the federal government invoked Chevron deference, a controversial legal doctrine which says that when the judiciary is confronted with an "ambiguous" statute, the default position is for the presiding judge to defer to the "reasonable" statutory interpretation favored by the federal agency charged with enforcing that statute.

In a bombshell ruling delivered this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit not only denied Chevron deference to Trump's bump stock ban, but held that "Chevron deference categorically does not apply" in the criminal law context. The 6th Circuit then took its own look at the text of the federal machine gun ban and decided that "a bump stock does not fall within the statutory definition of a machine gun." In sum, Trump's attempt to impose gun control via executive fiat lost big.

"It is not the role of the executive—particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate" the terms of criminal law, the 6th Circuit maintained. "Granting the executive the right both to determine a criminal statute's meaning and to enforce that same criminal statute poses a severe risk to individual liberty." According to the 6th Circuit, that risk is one of the reasons why judges have no business tipping the scales in favor of the executive in such cases. "Entrusting the interpretation of criminal laws to the judiciary, and not the executive," the court said, "mitigates that risk and protects against any potential abuses of government power."

This case began life as Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Barr, reflecting the fact that Trump's attorney general held the reins at the DOJ at the time. It is now known as Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, reflecting both the change in presidential administrations and the fact that the Biden Justice Department is now the one defending Trump's sweeping use of executive power.

NEXT: Abolishing the Filibuster Is About Power, Not Anti-Racism

Guns Law Judiciary Courts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

108 responses to “Trump's Bump Stock Ban Just Lost Big in Federal Court

  1. Do not discount the importance of Trump getting beaten on bump stocks because bump stocks are a little silly. The extension of firearms regulation to accessories and of arbitrary executive power against the Bill of Rights were dangerous and damned dangerous.

    1. And if you are so Trumpy that you believe in Trump’s infallibility and seek to defend him and this, you need to think of what Biden might try in this post Boulder atmosphere and closely review Trump’s real and entire record on RKBA rights – Trump proposed and imposed more and worse gun control than did even the very anti-gun Obama.

      1. Completely agree. I have to admit that I appreciate this court making it more difficult for Sleepy Joe to just declare all “assault weapons” to be machine guns.

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last DSDD month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Virtually nobody here defended trump on this measure idiot.

        1. Including Trump. Engineered to fail is a good description of the legislation.

          1. Indeed, I think pretty much everybody was shocked speechless when the regulation was actually upheld.

          2. THE GREAT JOBS OF USA BOYS GIRLS AND OLDERS I must give my thanks to Ashley, who posted here last week comment About system she uses to earn onlin℮… I’ve got my ert first check total of $550, pretty cool. i Am so excited, this is the first time i Actually earned something. i am going to work even harder new And i can’t wait for next week payment.go to home tab for more detail… READ MORE

      3. “And if you are so Trumpy that you believe in Trump’s infallibility and seek to defend him and this,..”

        If you’re such a TDS-addled shit that you assume anyone who supported much of what Trump did therefore supports all he did, perhaps you should jam your TDS up your ass so your head has some company.

      4. Whoever said Trump is infallible? He did a number of things that weren’t right. However, on balance he was a good president. It’s democrats that are cultish and have accountability, not most republicans.

    2. Are you sure this wasn’t a feature and not a bug?

      The perfect response to the Las Vegas shooting was nothing at all, but if that wasn’t feasible (and Trump needed to dissuade purple district and blue district Republicans from jumping on an assault weapons ban), then promising to write a sure to be declared unconstitutional bumpstock ban EO may have been the best imperfect option available.

      If all we get in the aftermath of the next big mass shooting is something as lame as a bumpstock ban, it’ll be miraculous. If Hillary Clinton had been president during the Las Vegas shooting, we’d be looking at a lot worse than a bumpstock ban, and if we have another shooting of that size while Biden is in office, he may pack the Supreme Court before settling for anything less than the national gun relinquishment [confiscation] plan he promised on his campaign website.

      1. I may have screwed up that tag.

        The point still stands.

        1. No. Once a tag is screwed up that’s it, the entire point is disqualified.

      2. what might be good about this ruling is that is shows attachments do not define a gun. so when they try to outlaw rifles with pistol grips or flash supressors and folding stocks etc maybe they will now not be able too unless written specifically by congress?

      3. Did you just invoke the 4D Chess defense of Trump’s bump-stock ban? C’mon. The ban was pure Do Somethingism.

        I’ll agree that I like it when politicians do such egregiously dumb shit that it forces the court’s hand…and that when the Courts dispense with it, Governmental authority if further constrained. But it’s still a risky maneuver. It’s foolish do consciously attempt it.

        1. It was do something-ism–and if those are the cards you’re dealt, doing as little as possible is the best you can do.

          Trump wrote the executive order sometime after Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to ban bumpstocks. That was the political maneuver to make if Trump wanted to save Republicans in purple and blue districts from having to go on the record voting against a bumpstock ban in the aftermath of a high publicity mass shooting.

          I’m not saying it was 3-D chess, but he may have taken one for the team, and I don’t think it’s stretch to suppose the White House knew that an EO is a lot easier to overturn than a law that’s been passed by Congress.

          1. I’m don’t think it was he was afraid of a congressional bump stock ban, I think he may have been leery about what else was in it.

            Almost impossible to ban bump stocks anyway, you can make one with a stout rubber band.

            1. “I’m don’t think it was he was afraid”

              Doesn’t look like you were thinking much at all when you typed this.

          2. I think Trump is, culturally, a gun controller, but not a committed one, and well aware of his need to play to his base. He would never have originated that ban had the NRA not, much to the membership’s disgust, decided to throw bump stock owners under the bus, and told him it was OK. But having been told it was OK, he didn’t personally have any reason to oppose it.

      4. Quite sure, since Trump also proposed at various times his own AWB, waiting periods, national registration, red flag laws without due process, and increasing the firearms purchase age. The last being the most egregious, since increasing the firearms ownership age above that for suffrage would de facto make firearms ownership a government granted privilege instead of a preexisting right.

        1. A bumpstock ban was what Trump actually did, and it was the next best thing to nothing.

          And the chances of us getting something better from Biden, after he campaigned on banning assault weapons, forcing us to register those that are already in circulation, banning the sale of guns and ammo online, and instituting a national relinquishment [confiscation] plan?

          Those chances are mighty slim.

          Because Trump wasn’t perfect doesn’t mean he wasn’t a vastly superior alternative to Biden, and given Biden’s campaign website, it’s downright irrational to think that Biden’s reaction to something like the Las Vegas shooting would be anywhere near as good as Trump’s was.

          1. So do you really think Trump is superior to Biden on this issue, or are you just promoting a known falsehood in order to get your less intelligent co-cultists all worked up? We have to ask now.

      5. I’ve considered that possibility and it may be one of the few narrow cases where I am willing to consider Trump did a 4D chess, but even then I only give it 50/50 odds. At any rate, I don’t think it was an idea of Trump’s own conception. Maybe a legal advisor said “Hey Trump, we can drop this political hot potato if you take executive action. The left will move on from bump stocks and whatever EO you take won’t hold up since its a law by exec fiat.” Maybe some Republican lawmakers said “hey, do this for us so we can point to it and not actually have to put a vote on the record.” At any rate, if it was a 4D move it was a cowardly one but right in line with the boldest of American RealPolitik.
        Recently Ted Cruz proposed Trump introduced the Paris Climate Accord and Iran nuclear deal as treaties so the Senate would have to vote to ratify them before they could be reinstated by Biden. That’s not a wildly different concept than the one you’re proposing so maybe Cruz came up with the idea.

        What we know for certain is Trump did take exec action on bump stocks and the court struck it down, the rest is speculation about strategy and motive.

        Bump stocks are about the only action Trump took on guns and it was a flimsy action, as demonstrated by the 6th Court. It was always a stupid ban because bump stocks are plainly a firearm accessory, not a machinegun, and they create an effect you can achieve either with rubber bands or with manual technique. HR127 is a completely different ball game in terms of gun control measures. It’s tantamount to the erasure of a good portion of our 2A rights.

        1. It was ballsy. Dumb too, as there’s no such animal as a, “[S]ure to be declared unconstitutional bumpstock ban EO.” Not with these courts. Trump isn’t a gun guy, and didn’t find it enough of a concern to tell the gun-banners to go fuck themselves. As he did on issues he did care about.

          I’ve no idea why some Trump supporters need to invoke this 4D-chess meme. The guy made a ton of mistakes in office. He was far from the reincarnation of Coolidge or Goldwater. I compared him to a Reagan-era Democrat, like Gephardt. It’s simply that our political culture had become so debased, so America-hating, that a Dick Gephardt 2.0 with P.T. Barnum’s chutzpah was a breath of fresh air for many Americans

          I’m glad the 6th swatted this down.

          1. Once again, Trump appears to have written that EO to prevent Republicans in blue and purple states and districts from having to go on the record against a bumpstock ban–after Dianne Feinstein introduced a bumpstock ban in Congress.

            “Democrats on Wednesday lined up behind a bill that would outlaw the the sale and possession of “bump stocks”, a device the Las Vegas gunman used to retrofit his weapons with rapid-fire capabilities, leaving 59 victims dead and more than 500 injured in just nine minutes.”

            “Dianne Feinstein introduces Senate gun control bill to ban bump stocks”

            —-The Guardian


            That may not be 3-D chess, but there’s more to it than a simple abdication of principle, too.

            1. For what it’s worth, the NRA was advocating more regulation of bump stocks at the time, too–for more or less the same reasons.

              “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,” Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the group’s two leading figures, said in a joint statement.

              The NRA pair blamed the Obama administration for approving the devices for sale “on at least two occasions”, and called on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law”.

              The NRA’s suggestion comes after Republican lawmakers indicated they might support a ban on the devices.”

              —-The Guardian


              Even if there wasn’t enough Republican support in both the House and the Senate to send it to President Trump’s desk, forcing Republicans in swing districts and swing states to go on the record voting against a bumpstock ban wasn’t about to do the GOP any favors.

              That’s the reason the Democrats introduce legislation like that, to try to force vulnerable Republicans to take a stance on an issue they can exploit to flip the seat. Vulnerable members can lose because Republicans stay home rather than vote for someone who supported a bumpstock ban, or they can lose because Democrats get mad at them for voting against a bumpstock ban. It’s much better for vulnerable members not to take a stance on an issue like that.

              That’s not 3-D chess. It’s just standard strategy. You don’t need to be prescient to know that your vulnerable members would rather not have to vote on an issue like that and would rather someone took it off the agenda by way of an EO so that it’s no longer an issue.

              Incidentally, Obama issued the DACA EO for similar reasons. Democrats in vulnerable districts and states would have rallied Republican voters against them by voting for amnesty, and their own party members might have stayed home rather than vote for a politician who stood by and did nothing while Homeland Security deported minors by the millions. Obama took the issue off the table with the DACA EO. It wasn’t 3-D chess when Obama did it, and it wasn’t 3-D chess when Trump did it.

              It’s more or less SOP.

              1. Yeah, fuck the NRA on this one. And WLP’s ineffectual leadership. And on his willingness to compromise. And so on.

                The NRA is not the arbiter of what good gun legislation should look like. They’ve needed new blood for awhile, and changed their bylaws to de facto prevent new blood from getting on their Board.

                1. This. The left has the NRA built up like it’s this org that fights every ounce of gun control to the death, when in reality they are garbage. I wish the NRA was the organization the left portrays them to be. They might be worth the membership dues at that point.

                  1. “The left has the NRA built up like it’s this org that fights every ounce of gun control to the death, when in reality they are garbage. I wish the NRA was the organization the left portrays them to be. They might be worth the membership dues at that point.”

                    That organization is the GOA!

                    1. The NRA is primarily a laundromat for foreign and illegal campaign contribution. It was hopelessly compromised by a spy for years, and then changed nothing when the spy was discovered. They are as anti-american as the KGB.

              2. I appreciate your analysis on this. You’ve made some solid points. Like I said before, I can’t mindread Trump but there is some credence to the idea he floated this EO knowing it would fall apart on procedural grounds and he was doing the GOP a favor. It’s believable.

                1. And I didn’t mean to imply that he (or the NRA) was right on the issue. There shouldn’t have been a bump stock ban, and he was wrong to put one in place. However, there was more to it than that, and anyone who tells us that the Republicans are just as bad on gun rights as the Democrats because of the bump stock ban is nuts. Because getting slapped in the face by the Republicans was bad doesn’t mean it’s just as bad as getting shot in the chest by the Democrats.

            2. Trump didn’t plan shit on this, Ken. The Sixth bailing him out in no way means he predicted they were going to, or that it would even matter to him. FThePostOffice is right on this one: it was flimsy, and it was something.

              There was a LOT of talk in gun and legal circles concerned with gun issues that this could easily have resulted in precedent that would have restricted things like lighter bolt carrier groups than in the original AR-15 spec (would have resulted in a higher rate of fire) or any other modifications that might have raised the rate of fire.

              This wasn’t set in stone to fail, Ken, and Trump wouldn’t have given a shit if it did. Again, he isn’t a gun guy. (How would a real estate developer from NYC be one?!) He, and we, just got lucky on this one, is all.

              1. Dianne Feinstein’s bill banned bump stocks, and if there hadn’t been a bill, there probably wouldn’t have been an EO. If Feinstein’s bill had been directed at something else, the EO might have done something else instead.

                As it was, the bump stock EO may have been the least bad option that, from a politically viability perspective, wasn’t doing nothing–and the fact that the NRA was more or less on board at one point with a bump stock ban doesn’t necessarily mean they were right. It just means that the Trump administration wasn’t alone in thinking that the bump stock ban wasn’t the least desirable option under consideration.

                And, surely, a law that passed Congress would have been harder to overturn.

            3. He covered the abdication of principle with the immediate shuttering of his Second Amendment Coalition (or Foundation, or whatever the fuck it was called, that DJT, Jr. was supposed to run with. I guess running around with Gavin Newsome’s sloppy seconds was more important.)

              Again: Trump isn’t and wasn’t, a gun guy. As you noted before he was elected, it was incumbent upon Libertarians to get someone close to him, to point out the reasons our philosophy makes sense, (and makes us all rich!), and thereby let him worry about unsettled issues.

              Which was a great idea.

          2. He’s not a Coolidge or Goldwater. But Goldwater didn’t get elected president, in fact lost in a major landslide that was considered a strong repudiation of all he was for. And Trump may be the best president we’ve had since Coolidge, although in retrospect Eisenhower was pretty good on that grading scale too.

    3. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor have found the VF estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information.. ….. Visit Here

    4. “In sum, Trump’s attempt to impose gun control via executive fiat lost big.”

      Trump got the courts to repudiate Chevron Deference.
      3D Chess

    5. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better BNHJthan regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page….. Visit Here

  2. It’s great when judges vindicate freedom. But they will also rule against us at times. The solution in such cases isn’t to threaten them. The solution is to get out into the real world and defend our rights. And these days we can do that easily on social media. Of course, most of the commentariat here will make endless cowardly excuses for running from the fight. That’s fine but then you cede any justification to resort to violence, intimidation or insurrection.

    1. Its hard to fight on social media when certain voices are being shut down and that may get worse if the Democrats get their way. BTW social media doesn’t make laws people need to be in the public forum not a bunch of key board warriors that few actually see. the words we write today are gone tomorrow.

      1. If you put the same relentlessness into fighting for self defense rights as you do into making excuses for running away, you would actually have a chance. But you don’t and so when a judge rules against you, you will have no justification for violence or intimidation.

        1. i do

          it’s why, unlike you, i don’t have time to waste on twitter

          1. Nope. If you refuse to fight in enemy territory that’s fine but then you have no justification to resort to violence. The war today is online not in the courts or the capitol building.

            Weird how you don’t have time for twitter but you have endless time to make cowardly excuses for running away:

            1. shouldn’t you be fighting people on twitter?

              1. I do every day. And you should too – with the same relentlessness that you bicker with your allies here in your safe space for a cheap ‘win’. Fine if you don’t but then you have no excuse for violence.

                1. well you can’t be fighting very hard of you have time to come here too

                  1. I don’t have time. I fought hard over the past year in support of many libertarian issues. But thanks for making my point. You have no excuse for violence.

                    1. you have plenty of time to post here so you can’t be fighting very hard

                    2. Go astroturf elsewhere, lefty.

                    3. OK and if I’m not fighting hard and you’re only bickering with your allies here in your safe space, then our loss on these issues is our own fault and we have no excuse for violence or intimidating judges when they rule against us.

                      Thanks for proving my point, please continue:

                    4. How many people’s minds have you changed on Twitter, would you guess?

                    5. Lots. And would be more if you helped instead of trying to distract and make excuses. We don’t need to convince everyone, but just enough to turn the tide. Otherwise they will come here and you’ll have no defense.

                    6. “…Thanks for proving my point, please continue:”

                      Any time you get this answer, you know you’re dealing with a bullshitter.

    2. five minutes inside your brain is probably a hoot.

      1. “Glows harder than a pregnant woman in Pripyat.”

        Not original; I just thought it was a funny—and apt!—turn of phrase.

    3. Fuck social media and the cretins who inhabit that sewer.

  3. My interpretation of “reasonable” is different than yours. And, who is this Trump fella? Is he some past dictator I should be aware of?

    1. I tried writing a novella where Trump squatted in the White House and was able to summon the full force of the military to surround it and prevent the Biden’s from occupying it. All the Joint Chiefs were fully onboard and eventually there was a Roberts opinion that affirmed the Texas complaint to dispense with the Pennsylvania election results. But it got so ridiculous that I gave up trying.

      1. everyone would have put it down the second Roberts ruled correctly

        1. Roberts letting anything remotely controversial get to the court, is where I would have put it down.

    2. “My interpretation of “reasonable” is different than yours…”

      Your “interpretation” is as full of shit as you are.

  4. So, are Democrats for bump stocks now? Trump banned them and everything he did was wrong and evil, so it only makes sense that they would be.

  5. “Trump’s Bump Stock Ban Just Lost Big in Federal Court”

    I’m sure Trump and the Republicans are just devastated that their poorly-crafted attempt to get the Dems and Media off their backs after the Parkland shooting, failed.

    I imagine Trump is in tears.

  6. Why did they base this ruling on a repudiation of Chevron rather than simply rule that the law wasn’t ambiguous?

    1. From my vantage point, I think there are a growing number of judges who really don’t like Chevron. When given an opportunity to criticize it, take it.

    2. That’s the intriguing part – are they hinting that Chevron has some limits and it may be time to revisit it? If this were the 9th, I’d just put it down to knee-jerk anti-Trumpism, but not the 6th. At any rate, the BATF ruling that bumpstocks are machine guns is just stupid, especially since they had already ruled earlier that bumpstocks are not machine guns. It’s going to be interesting to see the Biden Administration twisting and turning arguing that they should have carte blanche to outlaw weapons however they want while arguing that Trump shouldn’t have had that power. (It’s different when we do it.)

      1. And as to the question of whether Trump was playing some kind of 4-D chess here with his ban – no, Trump’s just a liberal New York Republican, he’s not opposed to gun control laws as a matter of principle. Have you really forgotten his “New York values” excuse for supporting abortion and gun control and his “I was accidentally using an old set of GOP talking points” excuse for “misspeaking” on the abortion issue because he seriously didn’t know what position he was supposed to be taking?

        1. All of this. As usual.

        2. I don’t think Trump has any real political philosophy. But he was the only president in my lifetime who actually tried to accomplish what he thought he was elected to do.

          1. This.
            All kinds of nonsense flowed from Trump’s mouth, but in the real world of results he was one of the best presidents you’ve ever had.

            1. Even if not best President, certainly most honest, transparent, and openly adversarial in a lifetime, maybe ever. Whatever interests controlled Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, and now Biden, none were so thoroughly investigated and thoroughly discredited, both theoretically and practically; end-to-end, as those that supposedly controlled Trump.

              If the Russians put Trump in power, whatever they were trying to achieve failed spectacularly and largely in spite of whatever efforts were made by Trump’s opposition. If the Russians didn’t put Trump in power, whatever organization did, did an exceptionally good job of both avoiding detection during the Russia investigation *and* convincing people that the ongoing investigation was efficacious.

    3. It’s not a much of a repudiation of Chevron, Chevron is still the law of the land and controlling precedent. The Supreme Court has never applied Chevron to a criminal statute. I’d say it’s more like they declined to extend Chevron further.

      1. And as this is just a circuit decision, they still might.

  7. It lost 2-1 in one of the circuits with instructions not to issue a nationwide injuction. It lost small.

  8. Did this court just say that Donald Trump was not elected in 2016?

    1. Did you just say you’re a TDS-addled shit?

  9. Trump’s reaction re bump stocks shows that would have been just another wishy-washy spineless GOP president- if the press hadn’t attacked him so virulently that he had no option but to fight back.

  10. Sweet! The courts just might actually save this country.
    Hope they’ll be just as consistent on Obamacare and Biden Nazism.

    1. Cram it Nazi traitor

      1. Fuck you with a running rusty chainsaw, asshole.

  11. “It is not the role of the executive—particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate” the terms of criminal law, said the 6th Circuit.

    Wonder if that applies to the EPA?

  12. I always got a kick out of bump stocks getting the rep they did. Well before anyone had created a bump stock it was well known that you could take a shoe lace, tie it to your belt loop, and tie a loop in the other end and loop around the trigger and get the same effect of rapid fire without pulling the trigger. In fact one of the big gripes about the AK47 knockoffs is that they tend to auto fire whether you want them to or not at times if you are not careful with trigger placement.

    Say what you want about the NRA but they do know something about guns and most experienced gun owners agreed with the NRA that bump stocks are a joke and only someone looking for a cheap thrill would want one.

    1. Correct, they are a stupid toy. But they wouldn’t have even been necessary if not for the blatantly unconstitutional NFA and Hughes Amendment. But that’s not to say that there’s not something fundamentally wrong with the government telling you you have to destroy something without compensating you for it.

  13. Bump stocks are a small deal in comparison to the Biden Regency’s upcoming executive orders on gun control.

    1. Yes

  14. Do not discount the importance of Trump getting beaten on bump stocks because bump stocks are a little silly. The extension of firearms regulation to accessories and of arbitrary executive power against the Bill of Rights were dangerous and damned dangerous.

    1. Yea

  15. Interesting how malleable the court’s reasoning can be.

    In this case, the courts rule that the executive cannot change criminal code by executive order…

    But in the case of DACA they ruled that the executive branch could not undo an illegal executive order that itself changed criminal code.

    Somehow I think that with our current courts, principals matter more than principles. There is no way to draw a straight line through the legal reasoning of our courts.

    The minute you discard “we are a nation of laws, not men” and begin ignoring the black letter of the law because you don’t like the implications, you get into real trouble. We are indeed in real trouble. (in this case, the black letter of the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”… not “shall be regulated as much as is deemed necessary, but not excessively so”)

  16. “held that ‘Chevron deference categorically does not apply’ in the criminal law context.”

    “Granting the executive the right both to determine a criminal statute’s meaning and to enforce that same criminal statute poses a severe risk to individual liberty.”

    Wish they would have said that to Anslinger 84 years ago, when he decided that marijuana means cannabis, therefore cannabis is prohibited by federal marijuana law, therefore you cannabis users are under arrest.

    “the federal government invoked Chevron deference, a controversial legal doctrine which says that when the judiciary is confronted with an “ambiguous” statute, the default position is for the presiding judge to defer to the “reasonable” statutory interpretation favored by the federal agency charged with enforcing that statute.”

    The default position should be that an ambiguous statute must be rewritten to be unambiguous, like this for example:

    (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L., which is, as are the viable seeds of such plant, prohibited to be grown by or sold by any publicly traded corporation or subsidiary company, and such smoke is prohibited to be inhaled by any child or by any person bearing any firearm, as is their intake of any part or any product of such plant containing more than 0.3% THC by weight unless prescribed to such child by an authorized medical practitioner.

  17. A bump stock modifies a gun to shoot without the control that was designed into a rifle.

    Instead of holding the stock into the shoulder for control and accuracy, requiring a conscious effort to selectively pull the trigger, a bump stock requires holding the gun off the shoulder in an unstable position to allow the recoil to effectively pull the trigger without the shooters conscious effort.

    It would be like disabling the brakes or steering on a transport truck to save money.

    In the following bump stock advertisement, the demonstrator accidentally activates the mechanism at the 20 second point in the video.

    It is irresponsible to modify a gun to make it less controlled.

    1. It is irresponsible to modify a gun to make it less controlled.

      So when I swap the full choke tube out of my shotgun for a cylinder choke so I get a larger pattern but less reach and penetration, I’m being irresponsible?

      What about when I shorten the foregrip on my rifle so that my sling fits better? Or shorten the barrel on my revolver so I can clear the holster quicker?

      1. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

        Do any of your faulty analogies decrease the control of the firearms, bypassing designed controls?

        If they did, yes you would be irresponsible.

        1. No problem reading, but you do have a problem with executive function, thinking your ideas through to implementation. Especially when you falsely conflate user behavior with design intent and slur responsibility across the whole mess the way you have.

          How do you measure ‘control’? By what metric do you determine when control has been illegally/significantly reduced? The entire premise is predicated on the faulty notion that Paddock wasn’t irresponsible for opening fire on a crowd of innocent civilians but that he didn’t do so in a more controlled and accurate manner.

          And, to answer your other question, yes, the shotgun originally came with a fixed (super) full choke barrel, specifically to prevent broad patterning. I bypassed this designed control by replacing the factory barrel with an aftermarket barrel. The revolver had a compensated barrel specifically designed to control muzzle flip. Shortening the barrel to clear the holster quicker specifically bypassed this feature in both the incidental and intentional sense.

          1. Do you really think that there are no irresponsible modifications?

            Do you think replacing a guns trigger mechanism with the act of holding the gun forward is a responsible modification?

            1. Do you think replacing a guns trigger mechanism with the act of holding the gun forward is a responsible modification?

              Do you really think you have to replace a gun’s trigger mechanism to get a bump fire? Do you really think the act of holding a gun forward is a modification?

              Exactly how much responsibility is engineered into current firearms by model? How much responsibility do you think should be designed into firearms?

              1. At the point when a modification makes the firearm likely to discharge when the shooter doesn’t want it to, or it’s aim is unpredictable, or it’s impossible to make safe it is irresponsible to use

                That being said, nothing that is not in the line of fire gets shot.

                Im sure there are several models of weapons that would meet that irresponsible criteria as designed.

                I’ve never used a bump stock but it seems to me that it would logically meet several criteria of irresponsibility.

  18. Begging pardon, but before going full Chevron, could we back up slightly for a second? I know questioning standing, evidence, and predication aren’t fashionable these days, but have we seen defintive proof the Vegas shooter used a bump stock yet?

    I don’t seriously doubt that he did, but I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling conclusive evidence that he did. There were many weapons with many features at the scene, is there anything even as flimsy as all the casings were around the bump stock guns, the only empty magazines were to those guns, or only the bump stock guns were dirty?

    1. I don’t even see how it matters. With all of the guns he had, and the monetary means and time, it would be trivial to shave a little metal off of a certain part and get real full auto anyway.

      1. That’s what I meant, invoking Chevron implies that there’s a reasonable and interprettable defense to be had; that a fishing expedition is OK as long as the fish is clearly and specifically delineated even if there are no fish in the lake. Even if Trump banned “Bump stocks specifically used by Stephen Paddock to kill people in his Las Vegas shooting rampage.” that the statement itself is capable of being unambiguously interpretted as true and clear.

      2. Not to mention a legit full auto weapon is far more reliable than any cheap AR knockoff with a bumpstock he seemed to favor.

    2. From what I remember there were some AR15 knockoffs fit with with bumpstocks that had stovepipes or other FTF issues and partially loaded mags. Reasonable circumstantial evidence he used at least some weapons fit with bumpstocks and that once a weapon reached a FTF level he switched to a different weapon.

      Of course it is possible he brought a bunch of ARs with stovepipes and partially loaded mags and never used them; but I doubt it.

  19. no problem there are still a lot of people who support trump.

  20. Prediction before reading comments: Whatever anti-liberty action Trump takes, his worshippers rationalize it no matter how much they have to stretch. The bump stock ban will be an example.

    Upon reading comments: Yep.

  21. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home.Last month i have generated and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks………

Comments are closed.