Guns International

About Those "Bump Stocks"...

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Texan-in-Training

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 8, 2012
    1,768
    96
    Rockdale, Texas
    For those who aren't familiar with Philip Hamburger...
    He is a very respected legal scholar, has written several books, noteworthy of which is "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?"
    His premise is that all of the "rulings" that the Executive Branch's "alphabet soup" organizations such as the ATF generate, cannot be law, Constitutionally, as they did not originate in the Legislative Branch of Government.
    I keep thinking about buying his book, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that level of "intellectual challenge"... I keep falling asleep trying to finish "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". :facepalm:
     

    pbratton

    Active Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Oct 21, 2011
    441
    46
    Sugar Land, Tx
    Everyone with a bump stock should sue the atf and bankrupt their treasonous a**es and see how they function after that.

    Not sure how that'd work, I'd be using my money to sue the ATF, who will in turn hire lawyers, (with my tax money), to fight the suit... I'd be suing myself bankrupt.
     

    Sam Colt

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2012
    2,245
    96
    Austin
    So then, one of every 13 of us should fall on our sword and get "malwared" cause you are chicken
    If having the decency to briefly summarize the point being made instead of posting a blind link without any context = "fall on our sword" then yes. Everyone should fall on their swords. All the time.

    And thanks for the summary, Tex! Intereting analysis.
     

    TxKronik

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 31, 2019
    33
    11
    San Antonio
    Hey Bud, it is our money they are playing with. Seems you believe it is their money. You will never bankrupt them, they'll just get more from us.

    I guess we could all just let them run a muck with no consequences then. They have a budget like everyone else and when you won you’d be getting your money back. And yes as soon as we pay our taxes it’s their money in their annual budget not ours.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    Everyone with a bump stock should sue the atf and bankrupt their treasonous a**es and see how they function after that.

    Well gov is $20Trillion in debt, so I doubt a few trillion more will have any effect.

    A better strategy might be to put together a well-researched case and present it to court.
     

    rmantoo

    Cranky old fart: Pull my finger
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 9, 2013
    814
    76
    San Angelo
    Summary from the Cato institute site:

    Before the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, almost nobody in the United States had ever heard of a “bump stock.” What was, and always has been, a gun-range novelty was suddenly the subject of national discussion. In the months following the tragedy, Congress considered and ultimately rejected a law banning these devices. Eager to seize political capital, however, the Trump administration sought to ban them anyway.

    The administration faced one problem, though: the Constitution. As anyone who’s seen School House Rock can tell you, only Congress can write new laws. Never to let something like a written constitution get in their way, the administration tried to make new law by “reinterpreting” an existing law: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which heavily regulates “machineguns.”

    For decades, Congress, the executive branch, and the people shared a common understanding: the definition of “machinegun” in the NFA was clear, applying only to weapons that fired continuously from a single function. Be it with a button, a lever, or a traditional trigger, a “machinegun” fires continuously upon the performance of a single function. Bump stocks, which require substantial and continuous user input to fire, had never been considered “machineguns.” President Trump announced that his administration was changing course. The president expressly declined to go through Congress, instead directing officials to redefine bump-stock devices as “machineguns.” In turn, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) broke from decades of precedent and granted itself a new power to ban a widely owned firearm accessory.

    This expansion of regulatory authority, motivated by political expediency, cannot stand. Whether one agrees that bump stocks should be regulated or not, this change is about far more than bump stocks. ATF has asserted the complete authority to ban any new class of weapons that were never covered by the 1934 law. This approach impermissibly expands the executive branch’s power to rewrite criminal laws and the casual approach to ignoring the Constitution would certainly not stop with the ATF if allowed to stand.

    The new rule, making felons of an unknowable number of Americans, took effect on March 26, 2019. Gun owners and advocacy groups filed lawsuits in several federal districts, including one that ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in which Cato also filed.

    Another case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It was brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of Clark Aposhian, who lawfully purchased a bump stock. Our brief here addresses issues that no other amicus discusses: that the executive branch cannot use the administrative process to accomplish legislative goals that Congress declined to enact.

    The implications of this case extend far beyond bump stocks. Regardless of what public opinion is at this moment, the law means what it says. The executive branch has the power to interpret existing law, not create new ones. The administration argues, essentially, that the clear political motive here doesn’t matter, and that nothing prevents them from inventing their own definitions of the terms that define a “machinegun.” That simply isn’t the case. Administrative interpretations are supposed to do just that—interpret existing law—not give new meaning to an old one.

    If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. The Founders weren’t short-sighted; there’s a reason laws that affect the entire nation have to come through Congress, not through politically motivated bureaucratic reimagination.
     

    andre3k

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 8, 2008
    1,038
    96
    Houston
    Great points. While the debate was going on many people were shortsighted in thinking that this was really about bump stocks. They failed to see the bigger picture. It's a slippery slope and the NRA, and many others should have never caved.
     
    Last edited:

    Hoji

    Bowling-Pin Commando
    Rating - 100%
    36   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    17,700
    96
    Mustang Ridge
    Great points. While the debate was going on many people were shortsighted in thinking that this was really about bump stocks. They failed to see the bigger picture. It's a slippery slope and the NRA, and many others should have never caved.
    The NRA did not cave. They are the ones who set the tone that got this ball of catshit rolling.
     

    candcallen

    Crotchety, Snarky, Truthful. You'll get over it.
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    21,358
    96
    Little Elm
    Summary from the Cato institute site:

    Before the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, almost nobody in the United States had ever heard of a “bump stock.” What was, and always has been, a gun-range novelty was suddenly the subject of national discussion. In the months following the tragedy, Congress considered and ultimately rejected a law banning these devices. Eager to seize political capital, however, the Trump administration sought to ban them anyway.

    The administration faced one problem, though: the Constitution. As anyone who’s seen School House Rock can tell you, only Congress can write new laws. Never to let something like a written constitution get in their way, the administration tried to make new law by “reinterpreting” an existing law: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which heavily regulates “machineguns.”

    For decades, Congress, the executive branch, and the people shared a common understanding: the definition of “machinegun” in the NFA was clear, applying only to weapons that fired continuously from a single function. Be it with a button, a lever, or a traditional trigger, a “machinegun” fires continuously upon the performance of a single function. Bump stocks, which require substantial and continuous user input to fire, had never been considered “machineguns.” President Trump announced that his administration was changing course. The president expressly declined to go through Congress, instead directing officials to redefine bump-stock devices as “machineguns.” In turn, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) broke from decades of precedent and granted itself a new power to ban a widely owned firearm accessory.

    This expansion of regulatory authority, motivated by political expediency, cannot stand. Whether one agrees that bump stocks should be regulated or not, this change is about far more than bump stocks. ATF has asserted the complete authority to ban any new class of weapons that were never covered by the 1934 law. This approach impermissibly expands the executive branch’s power to rewrite criminal laws and the casual approach to ignoring the Constitution would certainly not stop with the ATF if allowed to stand.

    The new rule, making felons of an unknowable number of Americans, took effect on March 26, 2019. Gun owners and advocacy groups filed lawsuits in several federal districts, including one that ended up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in which Cato also filed.

    Another case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It was brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of Clark Aposhian, who lawfully purchased a bump stock. Our brief here addresses issues that no other amicus discusses: that the executive branch cannot use the administrative process to accomplish legislative goals that Congress declined to enact.

    The implications of this case extend far beyond bump stocks. Regardless of what public opinion is at this moment, the law means what it says. The executive branch has the power to interpret existing law, not create new ones. The administration argues, essentially, that the clear political motive here doesn’t matter, and that nothing prevents them from inventing their own definitions of the terms that define a “machinegun.” That simply isn’t the case. Administrative interpretations are supposed to do just that—interpret existing law—not give new meaning to an old one.

    If the government really wants to regulate bump stocks, it needs to do so by passing a new law, not by assigning new meaning to an old one. The Founders weren’t short-sighted; there’s a reason laws that affect the entire nation have to come through Congress, not through politically motivated bureaucratic reimagination.

    An important part this very good post didnt mention is the ATF admitted they didnt really have the authority to do what they did. But the rule should still stand.
     
    Top Bottom