NEW ORLEANS, LA -(Ammoland.com)- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Trump-era bump stock ban is a violation of federal law.
For years, the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has held that bump stocks did not meet the definition of a machinegun. A machinegun is a firearm that expels multiple rounds by a single function of a trigger. A bump stock works by replacing the stock and the pistol grip of a rifle with a device that slides. The shooter puts forward pressure on the rifle’s handguard, causing the trigger to be pulled. The recoil of the rifle causes the trigger to reset, allowing the user to pull the trigger rapidly, but only one round is expelled per trigger pull.
During Donald Trump’s administration, a mass killing occurred in Las Vegas. The ATF claimed that a bump stock was used in the attack. Trump asked the ATF to “get rid” of bump stocks. The ATF used Chevron deference to declare bump stocks to be machineguns. Chevron deference is the legal deference afforded to government agencies. If a statute is ambiguous, then the agency in charge of the statutes the deference to determine the meaning of the statutes. The ATF changed the regulations and declared bump stocks to be machineguns because if a device converts a firearm into a machinegun, then the device itself is one. Chevron is very rarely used in criminal statutes. The ATF has used Chevron multiple times in criminal statutes, including the final frames and receiver rule.
Multiple legal challenges were filed against the ATF’s ruling on bump stocks.
A Tenth Circuit challenge (Aposhian v. Barr) failed, with the court siding with the ATF. A Sixth Circuit challenge (Gun Owners of America v. Garland) won a three-judge panel hearing, but the ATF requested and received an en banc hearing. An en banc hearing is a hearing where the full bench hears a case, and the panel decision is vacated like it never happened. The full bench split, leaving no winner. That means that the District Court’s decision stands. The District Court decided in favor of the ATF. Both plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to take up their case, but the Supreme Court denied both cases. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a bump stock was not a machinegun in United States v. Alkazahg, but that case only applied to the military.
A fourth case, Cargill v. Garland, was the final bump stock case alive. Michael Cargill and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed the lawsuit. The case attacked the bump stock for violating the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA is the law that governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. The plaintiffs argued their case before a three-judge panel, but the panel ruled for the defendants. The plaintiffs asked for an en banc hearing, and the Fifth Circuit granted the request vacating the panel’s decision. The plaintiffs and defendants pleaded their case in front of the full bench. The Fifth Circuit has now rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs causing a Circuit split.
The Court majority used the near decade of the ATF’s stance on bump stocks against them.
It highlights that FATD itself even admitted that bump stock didn’t meet the definition of machineguns and only reversed its opinion after the tragedy in Las Vegas. The court concluded that the change directly resulted from the shooting and not correcting a misinterpretation of the law or how bump stocks work.
The majority decision read: “But ATF reversed its longstanding position in 2018, subjecting anyone who possessed a bump stock to criminal liability. ATF reversed its position to a great extent in response to the tragic events that occurred in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. On that day, a deranged gunman murdered dozens of innocent men and women, and injured hundreds more. To carry out this appalling crime, the gunman used many weapons and utilized many accessories—including bump stocks.”
The court itself found bump stocks are not machineguns. It considered the ATF definition of a machinegun and reviewed how a bump stock works. Even to judges that are not firearms experts, it was abundantly clear that bump stocks did not meet the definition of a machinegun. But even the judges were wrong about the statute’s clarity; the “rule of lenity” would require the judges to “interpret the statute against imposing criminal liability.” The majority claimed that the ATF’s regulation violated those principles. Thirteen of the sixteen Fifth Circuit Court judges agreed that only Congress could ban bump stocks, and the ATF doesn’t have the power to ban bump stocks.
Since the government did not ask for Chevron deference to be applied, the Fifth Circuit didn’t have to apply Chevron. The Circuit Court found that the rule violated the APA and remanded the case to the District Court to enter a judgment for Mr. Cargill. It isn’t clear if the government will petition SCOTUS to hear an appeal, but if it does, the Supreme Court would likely take up the case since there is a Circuit Split almost forcing its hand to grant cert.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/PbFj1DR
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment