10th Circuit Bump Stock Argument

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!
  • Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    It's hard to tell what you end up getting as far as the 3 judge panel. Depending on the circuit you could end up having 2 senior judges or 2 district court fill ins as part of the panel, although I see those typically more in the 9th circuit than other circuits.

    This is en banc.
     

    viiper

    Re-Member
    Dec 3, 2008
    110
    Carroll County
    Isn’t it amazing how law abiding free people get legislated into being “criminals” without having done anything at all. It’s impossible for a single person to read and keep up with all these laws and regulations when they keep moving the goal posts, let alone playing fields, we’re supposed to be free to live our lives. Unreal. Sad.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    At this point, I'm betting the majority will be "because guns are bad!" And the dissent will be "Chevron must be overturned."

    If the majority is going to stick with the 3 judge panel, why did they take the case en banc? The majority is certainly questioning Chevron because the specifically asked about it in the order granting the en banc.

    One of the Obama judges recused themselves at least from the en banc order and possibly from the case.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    If the majority is going to stick with the 3 judge panel, why did they take the case en banc? The majority is certainly questioning Chevron because the specifically asked about it in the order granting the en banc.

    One of the Obama judges recused themselves at least from the en banc order and possibly from the case.

    Only takes a few judges to accept it en banc. I forget how many, but it isn’t a majority requirement IIRC.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    The majority is certainly questioning Chevron because the specifically asked about it in the order granting the en banc.

    That would be a refreshing sign.

    The law says what it means or means what it says (whichever you prefer), not what some bureaucrat thinks...
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Isn’t it amazing how law abiding free people get legislated into being “criminals” without having done anything at all. It’s impossible for a single person to read and keep up with all these laws and regulations when they keep moving the goal posts, let alone playing fields, we’re supposed to be free to live our lives. Unreal. Sad.

    yes. I agree. It's part of the "Deep State".
    Quoted.
    There’s no mystery to what Trump thinks. He claims that the Deep State, a cabal of career bureaucrats
    Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law
    by James B. Stewart book on Amazon.
    And https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/the_progressive_sliderule_of_law_in_vermont.html "Progressive slide rule of Law."

    Globalism Reset is very real.
    There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.

    President DJ Trump will stand in their way. He will be inaugurated 20 Jan.
    Watch what happens on 6 Jan.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Only takes a few judges to accept it en banc. I forget how many, but it isn’t a majority requirement IIRC.

    It is a majority. More specifically

    A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

    (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

    (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35

    there are more cert grants than en banc grants each year.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I think the real question is who is actually going to win a case. As of right now I am not aware of anyone winning a case that overturns bump stock or binary trigger regulations. We will see if this case becomes the first case.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    I think the real question is who is actually going to win a case. As of right now I am not aware of anyone winning a case that overturns bump stock or binary trigger regulations. We will see if this case becomes the first case.

    Was this the one that went up to SCOTUS and got denied cert but Justice Gorsuch suggested real problems with the ATF's about face or was that the DC case?
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    So, who is going to reimburse everyone who junked their bump stocks.

    If a court finds the GOV liable, the answer is taxpayers. If a subsequent 1983 suit (see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) is successfully brought against the officials responsible for the rule change, then there's a possibility of personal liability, but that the chance of that being successful is slim, at best.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Was this the one that went up to SCOTUS and got denied cert but Justice Gorsuch suggested real problems with the ATF's about face or was that the DC case?

    It was the DC case (Guedes). That case is still pending in the DC circuit last I checked. Gorsuch's dissent may be why the 10th circuit took this case en banc.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,087
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom