Bump stock ban unconstitutional

Good news:

Today the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regulation extending the federal prohibition on machineguns to “bump stocks” is unlawful, as Eugene noted in a post below. In Cargill v. Garland, the judges split 13-3 on the merits, and the 13 in the majority divided on the rationale. Eight of the judges concluded the statute is unambiguous. Five additional judges concluded that, insofar as the statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted not to cover bump stocks under the Rule of Lenity.

As I have said before, it is not unreasonable to assert that my grandkids will be participating in machine gun sporting events in high school.

My dream will have been realized.


2 thoughts on “Bump stock ban unconstitutional

  1. What are the chances that the state won’t appeal. Knowing that a SCOTUS decision would strike down all similar laws, not just applying to the Fifth Circuit?

  2. Bump stock ban is unconstitutional. Ya think? And in almost record time!
    (Although I think they’re going to have a hard time beating the 20-year DOJ investigation that netted misdemeanors all around.)

Comments are closed.