ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling

mikeyp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
12,246
Likes
17,155
Location
Plymouth
ATF Admits No Legal Authority For Bump Stock Ruling

Show of hands, who has been paying attention to the various lawsuits dealing with the ATF’s reinterpretation of Bump Stocks? Because to be completely honest, I haven’t been paying as much attention as I clearly should have been. In their most recent court filing, the ATF has admitted some truly explosive news. Namely, they concede that they do not have the authority to reinterpret the definition of machine guns in the bump stock ruling under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

ATF Admits No Legal Authority for Bump Stock Ruling
Let’s back up and provide some context. So, on December 26th, 2018, the ATF issued a final ruling on “bump stocks”. A bump-stock is a device that allows an operator of a firearm to simulate automatic fire by muscle power. While previously the ATF had decided that bump-fire or slide-fire stocks were legal devices, they then reclassified them as illegal machineguns. All current owners were ordered to destroy them. If you did not do so, you faced up to 10 years in federal prison.


Naturally, a lot of people became somewhat ticked off that the ATF would seemingly arbitrarily change their ruling to make thousands of Americans potential felons overnight. As a result, many people filed lawsuits. One such lawsuit was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of plaintiff W. Clark Aposhian.

This Case in Particular
This lawsuit rests on a fairly straightforward presumption. The complaint states that since all legislative powers lie with Congress, the ATF, as a part of the executive branch, cannot reinterpret statutes to mean something else. Since the law regarding machineguns has not changed, bump stocks can’t be reclassified as machineguns.

There are another 30 odd pages of the original complaint, but that’s about the gist of things. Mr. Aposhian is a law-abiding citizen, the ATF told him that bump stocks were legal so he bought one. The filing states that the ATF lacks the authority to reclassify bump stocks, and thus the ATF has violated Mr. Aposhian’s constitutional rights, as well as exceeding its constitutional remit as part of the executive branch.

ATF Bump Stock Ruling Admission – Why Should We Care?
The million-dollar question. Why do we care? Because as of September 18th, the ATF has written a court brief that admits it exceeded its constitutional remit as part of the executive branch. The court filing states specifically that;

The statutory scheme does not, however, appear to provide the Attorney General the authority to engage in “gap-filling” interpretations of what qualifies as a “machinegun”. Congress has provided a detailed definition of the term “machinegun”…

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, on behalf of Mr. Aposhian, quickly filed a for a preliminary injunction. Essentially, as Mr. Aposhian has suffered “irreparable harm” from the deprivation of his lawfully-acquired bump stock, and the ATF (in the opinion of the Plaintiffs) clearly lacks the authority to cause such deprivation, the Final Rule on Bump Stocks should be struck down.

NCLA Brief

ATF’s Brief on the bump stock ruling is behind a login-wall in the PACER system. It can be found in the 10th Circuit Court’s filings, case number 19-4036, Aposhian v. Barr, et al.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
5,141
Likes
3,366
I wonder if that means anything for Massachusetts? It's a different law, but maybe gun parts cannot be constitutionally banned maybe?

I think the "we can't reinterpret stuff that the legislature wrote" part is much more applicable to Healey's "clarification" of AR-15s as "copies or duplicates"
 

enbloc

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
43   0   0
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
28,242
Likes
39,608
ATF...

 

NHCraigT

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
5,153
Likes
5,535
Location
Southern NH

Are Bump Stocks Still Alive? Feds Drop Charges Because They Couldn’t Prove Devices are Machine Guns
by JORDAN MICHAELS on NOVEMBER 18, 2020

A bump stock case in Houston is making waves in the pro-gun community after federal prosecutors dropped bump stock-related charges against a man because “the government couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the bump stock was a machine gun,” according to the Houston Chronicle. ....
 

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
20,134
Likes
19,271
Location
Back from Motherland

hv55maxx

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
2,458
Likes
759
Location
Northwest Assachusetts where the dragons be
"The complaint states that since all legislative powers lie with Mass Legislature, Maura Healey, as a part of the executive branch, cannot reinterpret statutes to mean something else. Since the law regarding various "Assault Weapons" has not changed, AR-15's can’t be reclassified as Assault Weapons."
 

Fixxah

NES Member
Rating - 100%
41   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
30,696
Likes
10,584
Location
Outskirts of Tiot.
"The complaint states that since all legislative powers lie with Mass Legislature, Maura Healey, as a part of the executive branch, cannot reinterpret statutes to mean something else. Since the law regarding various "Assault Weapons" has not changed, AR-15's can’t be reclassified as Assault Weapons."
Where is this from?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
38,038
Likes
16,384
"The complaint states that since all legislative powers lie with Mass Legislature, Maura Healey, as a part of the executive branch, cannot reinterpret statutes to mean something else. Since the law regarding various "Assault Weapons" has not changed, AR-15's can’t be reclassified as Assault Weapons."
The court (especially a MA court) could simply conclude that the original interpretation was wrong, and that Healy got it right.

If you want to see the kind of contorted logic the MA SJC can engage in to generate a desired result, just look at Richardson v. UPS Store, SJC-12769 | Casetext Search + Citator.
 

ReluctantDecoy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
3,187
Likes
3,069
Location
Cambridge, MA
Top Bottom