The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to do what courts usually do in statutory interpretation disputes: supply its best independent judgment about what the law means. But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.
That was mistaken.
…
Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.
Justice Gorsuch
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 19–296. Decided March 2, 2020
[I have never owned a bump stock and almost for certain never will. For long distance work a bolt gun serves my needs best. For close up work aimed fire from a semi-auto appears to be optimal.
As near as I can tell a bump stock is best suited for converting money into noise. While I can understand that could be a reasonable use of someone else’s money it’s generally not something I want to do with my money.
That said, just because I don’t anticipate the use of one for myself I regard the ban on bump stocks to be extremely concerning. The law quite clearly does not forbid the ownership or use of a bump stock. Yet the administration insisted the law means something entirely different from what it says. This sort of behavior is not acceptable.
While there is still a decent chance SCOTUS will correct the mistake it is important to note that a right delayed is a right denied.
If it were up to me the court will slap the administration down so hard their ears ring as if they had a dozen bump stock equipped rifles emptying 100 round magazines simultaneously near their unprotected ears. Then I would recommended them for prosecution under 18 USC 242 and tell them, Enjoy. Your. Trial.—Joe]
“But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.”
Imagine your local fire department or ambulance crew saying that every time they get a call. “We understand that you believe your house is on fire, but let’s not get hasty; we’re waiting for verification from unbiased sources.”
We’ve heard something like this before, I believe. Ah yes; it was in reference to certain W.W. II “work” camps.
It’s not their job to sit on their thumbs and be “concerned”. It’s their job to uphold the Bill of Rights in this case even though they clearly don’t want to do it.
Too bad our culture has been conditioned to believe that adherence to the American principles (to which each of the creatures in question have sworn an Oath) constitutes an offense knows as “bias” and is therefore despicable.
Also, it is at least imaginable that a few bump stocked semi autos could serve the function of area suppression against a large opposing force, possibly to better effect than the same group of semi autos not so equipped, and possibly as well as a few SAWs. Though I’ll admit that any difference would likely be small, neither we nor anyone else may say to another that it shall not be done!
The problem for the government in this case is that we are now touching on the NFA, and they put us in this situation. I have just described a practical role for bump stocks in militia service (regular or otherwise), and of course the SAWs would serve that purpose even better, being as they are built for the task.
They’re painting themselves, as the saying goes, deeper and deeper into a corner from which there is no escape. They’re making arguments today which will condemn them and their cohorts tomorrow. Nor does it matter whether The People notice, at the moment, for the arguments are a matter of permanent record. They could repent today and be forgiven, even celebrated perhaps, in some quarters, but there will come a time, maybe soon, when “probation” will end on this matter.
You don’t have the luxury of waiting until judgement day to repent. It is your record of commitment to the fundamental principles, and not your “concern”, which matters here.
And yes; the direct parallel with Biblical precepts is intentional. Whose side were you on when the outcome of the war was yet uncertain, and looked grim, even downright impossible, and all that sort of stuff? Eh, SCOTUS? Eh, lower courts? Eh, rank and file LEOs? Hmm? Only by examining THAT question will your allegiance be truly known. We’re all thus tested.
Or are compromise and expediency (“pragmatism”) the only principles you’re willing to uphold to the death? For die we surely will if we uphold them as superior to the founding principles and the Law of Liberty.
Like you, I’ve never owned a BumpStock, and never planned on owning one. I owned multiple ‘real’ machineguns since 1983, having culled the herd over the years down to an M16 & UZI due to age vs. the logistics involved in lugging around all the gear and ammo.
That said. This suit is more about how the ATF bureaucraps used pretzel logic to redefine a definition in the law so they could rule that these contraptions are machinegun conversion devices, thus by law, machineguns.
The problem is, as I understand it, the preliminary injunction was to stop the implementation of the rule until the suit was settled. Since the Hughes amendment – 18 USC 922(o) – to FOPA ’86 makes mgs manufactured after May ’86 contraband for citizens not a FFL & SOT, these stocks now have to be surrendered or destroyed, or else whoever possesses them can be charged with a federal felony, which was the whole point for asking for the injunction in the first place..
Whoopie! Thankee Justice Gorsuch.
All it takes is four (4) Justices deciding to hear a case and we now know Justice “Individual Rights” Gorsuch wasn’t one of them.
Yes, the plaintiffs just might win in the years long long run it seems to take for these cases to reach a legal conclusion, but now who cares? Since the plaintiffs can’t legally keep contraband, they’re out their property.
Just me, but I see a Court full of Justices that may not like ‘Chevron Deference’ or any bureaucrap deference at all, but they’re not so dense as to not figure out what they actually let happen was what the goobermint wanted all along.
Get the bumpstocks.
Somewhere in this I smell some SCOTUS hypocrisy.
But that”s just me.
Absolutely. Someone ever think that a Joe Biden wouldn’t consider your 30rnd. magazine as the same piece of plastic? After all, it is what makes all machine guns full-auto.
The stupidity of their argument in refusal is more telling anything else!
If the problems that the judge brought up aren’t enough for them to take the case? Holy HELL!
He doesn’t think giving legal interpretation rights to every commissar that walks the halls of government worthy of SOCTUS attention at this time?
Basically, if some moron decides they don’t like it. Don’t think you should have it anymore. They can make you destroy it. No matter the facts, or the cost? Just, do what say, or go to jail! And his answer is we’ll deal with it later? Maybe? That is if all the i’s are dotted, and the T’s crossed?
The SCOTUS shouldn’t even need a case before it to slap an injunction on the BATF over this one. Their usurping the power of the court!
I believe the most telling take-away from this is how fast Trump managed to get what he wanted done. But true lawlessness gets a pass in so many other areas?
Their trial shouldn’t take long. And if we get a hung jury. We can just reinterpret the definition of double jeopardy?
“As near as I can tell a bump stock is best suited for converting money into noise.”
Joe wins the internet today!!