BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • 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!
  • Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

    https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...g-Trump-Bump-Stock-Ban-Injunction-Sought.html

    Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com.

    The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

    “Bump-stocks” were legal under federal law and prior determinations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today. Under the new rule, owners of the devices have just 90 days to surrender or destroy their property, after which they could face federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.

    The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. Prince and Kraut previously filed a nearly 1,000-page formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which included a video exhibit showing the actual operation of a “bump-stock” device on an AR-15 type firearm. That opposition and its 35 exhibits can be viewed at www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition.

    “The ATF has misled the public about bump-stock devices,” Prince said. “Worse, they are actively attempting to make felons out of people who relied on their legal opinions to lawfully acquire and possess devices the government unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and improperly decided to reclassify as ‘machineguns’. We are optimistic that the court will act swiftly to protect the rights and property of Americans who own these devices, and once the matter has been fully briefed and considered by the court, that the regulation will be struck down permanently.”

    In a January statement, Firearms Policy Coalition said that the federal “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” Following that, in February, FPC also commented that as they “opposed the lawless manner in which President Obama often ruled by ‘pen-and-a-phone’ executive fiat,” they objected to and would fight “President Trump’s outrageous lawlessness here.”

    “In its rulemaking, the Trump Administration is attempting to abuse the system, ignore the statutes passed by the Congress, and thumb its nose at the Constitution without regard to the liberty and property rights of Americans. That is unacceptable and dangerous,” explained Adam Kraut, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “It is beyond comprehension that the government would seek establish a precedent that it can arbitrarily redefine terms and subject thousands of people to serious criminal liability and the loss of property.”

    Anyone who owns a “bump-stock” device and who would like to consider participating in the case should contact the FPC/FPF Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline or (855) 252-4510 (available 24/7/365) as soon as possible.

    Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Madison Society Foundation (www.madison-society.org) is a 501(c)(3) grassroots nonprofit based in California. It promotes and preserves the purposes of the Constitution of the United States, in particular the right to keep and bear arms. MSF provides the general public and its members with education and training on this important right.

    :party29:
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,499
    God's Country
    So lets see how this plays out. Just about every thing the Administration has tried to do has been blocked in the courts.

    What are the odds that they say this rule change is ok.
     

    Bigfoot21075

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 3, 2008
    1,404
    Elkridge, MD
    So lets see how this plays out. Just about every thing the Administration has tried to do has been blocked in the courts.

    What are the odds that they say this rule change is ok.

    Yeah BUT it those things have been blocked in liberal courts. That is a BIG difference..... I guarantee the nutty 9th circuit will not lift a finger on this one.
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,862
    AA County
    Yeah BUT it those things have been blocked in liberal courts. That is a BIG difference..... I guarantee the nutty 9th circuit will not lift a finger on this one.
    Was this filed with the Ninth?



    .

    Sent using the user limitations inherent of mobile devices.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    This is so blatantly unlawful, it could be a nice way of getting a pro-gun precedent smacked down on the ATF. What was the recent court case that dealt with administrative fiat going too far? There was a case that wasn't a gun case dealing with overreach.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    IIRC administrative rule challenges like this must be filed in D.C. Congress gave them jurisdiction.

    D.C. is anti-gun.

    This will get shot down faster than a sick grouse.

    Not so fast! DC is shall issue.
    If it gets shot down, where does it go after DC? ;)
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    And Maryland isn't. Who would have thought that would ever happen?

    So, there is that.

    Yep. If you would have told me just a few years ago DC would be Shall Issue before MD I would have pointed and laughed at you like you were a porn star with a micropenis.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Yep. If you would have told me just a few years ago DC would be Shall Issue before MD I would have pointed and laughed at you like you were a porn star with a micropenis.

    But will lightning strike twice?

    Keep in mind, they are not challenging the ban on 2nd amendment grounds.

    They can win some of these arguments, but the remedy is not un-banning bump stocks. If they win the argument over Whittaker for example, the new AG will just sign it when he's confirmed in Jan, and the clock will re-start (maybe). The remedy for most of these administrative claims is "ban bump stocks a different procedurally correct way."

    They can win the takings argument, but the courts says ATF has to compensate owners. House and Senate will fund it in a NYC minute (and Trump will sign it). Is that really a win? An exchange of money for the government taking bump stocks? NY progressives like Bloomberg have infinite pockets and if the only hurdle becomes "just" compensation, they will happily raise all the money needed for a complete confiscation of semi-auto rifles.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,433
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom