Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!

[pastera]

Reading this now and will update with comments

Going to go slow since I just had my eyes dilated for an eye exam

 

[LittleCalm]

It’s sad that the dissent just rules on emotion (and it’s clear they hate guns and gun owners) while the majority (and Alito’s concurrence) simply interprets the law as written. If Congress wanted to ban bump stocks, it could have and still can. Pretty simple decision that should have been unanimous and free from emotional perspectives.

 

[CrackPot]

5th circuit court of appeals accepts appeal of bumpstock ban en banc (update ban struck down, post 26)

The 3 judge panel on the 5th circuit upheld the district court ruling saying the bumpstock ban was legal. The 3 judge panel was 1 Clinton judge, 2 Obama The en banc panel will be all active judges in the 5th, so 12 GOP nominated and 5 democrat nominated. The 5th circuit is the most...

www.northeastshooters.com

Covered in this thread so lets call this one a DUPE

 

[Remote Camper]

I Just keep posting this everywhere.
Does this mean the Akins Accelerator can come back?


RC

 

[pastera]

I Just keep posting this everywhere.
Does this mean the Akins Accelerator can come back?


RC

No
Until the Hughes amendment or the NFA is struck down you won't see the accelerator

 

[Remote Camper]

Why not? That was just literally a bump stock for the 10/22.
It didn’t change anything to the original firearm, it was still semi automatic, you still had to pull the trigger for every shot,


RC

 

[dcmdon]

Why not? That was just literally a bump stock for the 10/22.
It didn’t change anything to the original firearm, it was still semi automatic, you still had to pull the trigger for every shot,


RC

the Accelerator had a spring in it that eliminated the requirement to provide forward pressure with your support hand. It was launched circa 2006.

You literally just pressed the trigger and it ran. This was determined to be the problem.

In 2012, it was relaunched without the spring. So the shooter has to provide forward tension with their support hand. Configured this way, it's just a bump stock and would now be legal again.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

the Accelerator had a spring in it that eliminated the requirement to provide forward pressure with your support hand. It was launched circa 2006.

You literally just pressed the trigger and it ran. This was determined to be the problem.

In 2012, it was relaunched without the spring. So the shooter has to provide forward tension with their support hand. Configured this way, it's just a bump stock and would now be legal again.

The ruling is ambiguous regardng the AA, which means no one will dare sell it.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

the highest court in the land should NOT pick a side. any court !

 

[RKG]

I am a little troubled by the title given this thread: “Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!” The anti-bumpstocks regulation was drafted and pushed down BATFE’s throat by non-BATFE superiors for the acknowledged purpose of usurping authority that belongs to Congress alone. Those responsible are worthy of all of the opprobrium we sling their way, but extending this to the folks I’ve worked with at BATFE – all pretty much straight shooters, honest, candid, and by no means ardent anti-gunners – is, in my judgment, neither fair nor wise.

Long after Biden and the whacko Democrats are gone, BATFE will still be around. There is no point to making enemies of them. Not only did the professionals at BATFE make clear for a long time that bumpstocks do not render self-loaders into “machine guns,” as defined by the governing statute, but over time BATFE has given us a few good things, such as the “dual residency” interpretation of 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(6).

 

[240Geezer]

I am a little troubled by the title given this thread: “Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!” The anti-bumpstocks regulation was drafted and pushed down BATFE’s throat by non-BATFE superiors for the acknowledged purpose of usurping authority that belongs to Congress alone. Those responsible are worthy of all of the opprobrium we sling their way, but extending this to the folks I’ve worked with at BATFE – all pretty much straight shooters, honest, candid, and by no means ardent anti-gunners – is, in my judgment, neither fair nor wise.

Long after Biden and the whacko Democrats are gone, BATFE will still be around. There is no point to making enemies of them. Not only did the professionals at BATFE make clear for a long time that bumpstocks do not render self-loaders into “machine guns,” as defined by the governing statute, but over time BATFE has given us a few good things, such as the “dual residency” interpretation of 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(6).

Good luck with that line of thinking.
I'll just see myself out before I say something that gets me banned.

 

[Remote Camper]

Thanks.


RC

 

[dcmdon]

I am a little troubled by the title given this thread: “Bumpstocks Legal - SCOTUS smacks down ATF, AGAIN!” The anti-bumpstocks regulation was drafted and pushed down BATFE’s throat by non-BATFE superiors for the acknowledged purpose of usurping authority that belongs to Congress alone. Those responsible are worthy of all of the opprobrium we sling their way, but extending this to the folks I’ve worked with at BATFE – all pretty much straight shooters, honest, candid, and by no means ardent anti-gunners – is, in my judgment, neither fair nor wise.

Long after Biden and the whacko Democrats are gone, BATFE will still be around. There is no point to making enemies of them. Not only did the professionals at BATFE make clear for a long time that bumpstocks do not render self-loaders into “machine guns,” as defined by the governing statute, but over time BATFE has given us a few good things, such as the “dual residency” interpretation of 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(6).

I was at SHOT in 2015 and spoke to an ATF representative. He said that the Obama admin REALLY wanted to ban bump stocks, but that AG Holder had looked at the law and determined that without legislative action there was nothing he could do.

Obama eventually ended up making a lot of noise about them urging congress to pass legislation. But he never attempted executive action. Even Obama and Holder knew that they couldn't ban them.

 

[dcmdon]

The ruling is ambiguous regardng the AA, which means no one will dare sell it.

Assuming this is correct. (and it probably is, since you are usually right. ;-). ). It would be interesting to submit an AA without a spring to the Tech Branch again for approval.

 

[pastera]

Assuming this is correct. (and it probably is, since you are usually right. ;-). ). It would be interesting to submit an AA without a spring to the Tech Branch again for approval.

It would be unlikely to pass since the spring served to automate the function of the trigger.
On a bump stock, a springless AA, you mimust perform two manual functions to get bump fire - firm trigger finger pressure against the finger stop and a controlled pressure on the fore grip to allow recoil to reciprocate the gun

On an Atkins Accelerator the reset and subsiquent pull of the trigger happens automatically through the action of the spring as long as the trigger finger is held firm against the stop.
Even an FRT is more supported as a non-machinegun