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!
  • Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    It's pretty clear that this case isn't really about bump stocks, it's about Chevron and other deference to Executive Branch regulatory expertise. How can DOJ possibly argue it's opinions are infallible when it now directly contradicts its own previous conclusions, and, more importantly, how can courts then continue to presume that a regulatory agency is always correct when that judgement is subsequently questioned - by themselves? The twisted logic gives me a headache.

    Oh, and then there's the whole 4th Amendment Takings issue, too.
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    548
    The takings clause is effectively completely defunct if the government can merely make it illegal to possess something without offering fair compensation in return.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,689
    The takings clause is effectively completely defunct if the government can merely make it illegal to possess something without offering fair compensation in return.

    It's that pesky Constitution again, interfering with the right of the Government to make decisions for the People.

    Might makes Right . . . as long as we allow it to do so. Sort of begs the question of whose might is mightier. We will eventually find the answer.
     

    mangleu

    Active Member
    Jan 29, 2020
    100
    The case has some great arguments based of current legal definitions that contradicts the plaintiffs charges.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    The en banc panel vacated the en banc grant and reinstated the 3 judge panel decision. It currently stands as a loss in the 10th circuit.

    https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-4036.pdf
    heard by 11 judges, the chief judge and four others combine to write four scathing dissents.

    The chief's dissent hits the nail on the head:
    "To make the firearm “shoot automatically more than one shot”, the
    shooter must also be pulling forward on the barrel of the gun. Because a bump
    stock requires this extra physical input, it does not fall within the statutory
    requirement that the weapon shoot “automatically . . . by a single function of the
    trigger.” "

    "Whether we view the issue as one of waiver or of Chevron’s applicability,
    the result is the same. We cannot sua sponte raise Chevron deference. In this
    case, that means we must do what courts have done for centuries and interpret the
    statute the old-fashioned way: de novo. As indicated above, doing so leads to a
    clear result: bump stocks are not machine guns."

    "Conclusion
    Anyone who has seen a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock
    understands it increases the rate of lethal fire. But Congress did not define
    “machinegun” based upon the speed at which a firearm shoots or the firearm’s
    potential for mass carnage. Section 5845(b) defined “machinegun” based on its
    mechanical operation. The language of that statute and that statute alone is what
    we must apply.
    The en banc majority has done the circuit no favors today. By dismissing
    the en banc order, the majority perpetuates confusion on difficult issues in the
    circuit. We are left not knowing whether the government can waive Chevron,
    whether the rule of lenity can ever trump Chevron, and whether formal
    concessions concerning a preliminary injunction factor before the district court is
    binding. For the sake of courts and future litigants who must wade through the
    panel majority’s reasoning, I can only hope we receive clarity on these issues
    sooner rather than later."

    And the others continue from there.
     

    ShafTed

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 21, 2013
    2,213
    Juuuuust over the line
    heard by 11 judges, the chief judge and four others combine to write four scathing dissents.

    The chief's dissent hits the nail on the head:
    "To make the firearm “shoot automatically more than one shot”, the
    shooter must also be pulling forward on the barrel of the gun. Because a bump
    stock requires this extra physical input, it does not fall within the statutory
    requirement that the weapon shoot “automatically . . . by a single function of the
    trigger.” "

    "Whether we view the issue as one of waiver or of Chevron’s applicability,
    the result is the same. We cannot sua sponte raise Chevron deference. In this
    case, that means we must do what courts have done for centuries and interpret the
    statute the old-fashioned way: de novo. As indicated above, doing so leads to a
    clear result: bump stocks are not machine guns."

    "Conclusion
    Anyone who has seen a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock
    understands it increases the rate of lethal fire.
    But Congress did not define
    “machinegun” based upon the speed at which a firearm shoots or the firearm’s
    potential for mass carnage. Section 5845(b) defined “machinegun” based on its
    mechanical operation. The language of that statute and that statute alone is what
    we must apply.
    The en banc majority has done the circuit no favors today. By dismissing
    the en banc order, the majority perpetuates confusion on difficult issues in the
    circuit. We are left not knowing whether the government can waive Chevron,
    whether the rule of lenity can ever trump Chevron, and whether formal
    concessions concerning a preliminary injunction factor before the district court is
    binding. For the sake of courts and future litigants who must wade through the
    panel majority’s reasoning, I can only hope we receive clarity on these issues
    sooner rather than later."

    And the others continue from there.


    ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, NOT TO MENTION PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

    This continually irritates me to no end! The maximum rate of fire of any rifle is determined by the cycle time (cartridge fires, is extracted, ejected, next cartridge stripped from mag, chambered, & returned to battery) and all of these actions are determined by physical characteristics: mass of moving parts, gas pressure at various locations & times, and restorative forces applied by springs. ALL OF THESE THINGS REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME unless some internal modifications are made. Attaching a silly piece of plastic to the outside of the gun CANNOT change any of the internal parts, therefore, cannot have any effect on the rate of fire.

    Rant over, we now return to your regularly scheduled thread diversion.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, NOT TO MENTION PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

    This continually irritates me to no end! The maximum rate of fire of any rifle is determined by the cycle time (cartridge fires, is extracted, ejected, next cartridge stripped from mag, chambered, & returned to battery) and all of these actions are determined by physical characteristics: mass of moving parts, gas pressure at various locations & times, and restorative forces applied by springs. ALL OF THESE THINGS REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME unless some internal modifications are made. Attaching a silly piece of plastic to the outside of the gun CANNOT change any of the internal parts, therefore, cannot have any effect on the rate of fire.

    Rant over, we now return to your regularly scheduled thread diversion.

    I can’t fire as fast as a bump stock even with a rapid fire trigger. Can you? Close, but not quite.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, NOT TO MENTION PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

    This continually irritates me to no end! The maximum rate of fire of any rifle is determined by the cycle time (cartridge fires, is extracted, ejected, next cartridge stripped from mag, chambered, & returned to battery) and all of these actions are determined by physical characteristics: mass of moving parts, gas pressure at various locations & times, and restorative forces applied by springs. ALL OF THESE THINGS REMAIN EXACTLY THE SAME unless some internal modifications are made. Attaching a silly piece of plastic to the outside of the gun CANNOT change any of the internal parts, therefore, cannot have any effect on the rate of fire.

    Rant over, we now return to your regularly scheduled thread diversion.

    The maximum rate of fire for an automatic rifle is determined by the cycle time. The maximum rate of fire for a semiautomatic rifle the rate of fire is limited by the ability of the shooter to repeatedly pull the trigger and the cycle time. From a limitation stand point it takes a normal shooter much longer to repeatedly pull the trigger than it does for the typical semiautomatic gun to cycle. A bump stock will allow the shooter to repeatedly pull the trigger faster than normal causing the rate of fire from a semiautomatic rifle to increase as previously stated by the judges.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    Unsuppressed semi automatic weapons cause hearing loss and carpal tunnel syndrome.

    Lots of things increase the shooters ability to pull the trigger faster. I’m not aware of any that do more to decrease accuracy than a bump stock ( or shoe string)

    Lighter triggers and Short reset triggers can increase the rate of accurate fire.

    It should be congress”s job to fix the law.
     

    gwfrench

    Active Member
    Aug 21, 2014
    199
    Frederick, MD
    I watched a video one time of Mr. Miculek firing an M1 Garand. In slow motion it looked like a machine gun. The bolt moved forward, rotated, fired the moment it stopped moving. 8 rounds in 1.25 seconds or so. It was running at its cycle time speed.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    I watched a video one time of Mr. Miculek firing an M1 Garand. In slow motion it looked like a machine gun. The bolt moved forward, rotated, fired the moment it stopped moving. 8 rounds in 1.25 seconds or so. It was running at its cycle time speed.

    8 round in 1.25 sec is 384 rpm (0.156 sec/round). The cyclic rate for an M14 is 700-750 rpm (0.08-0.086 sec/round). Even with Miculek most guns cannot be semi-automatically fired at their cyclic rate.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,016
    Glenelg
    soooooo

    The maximum rate of fire for an automatic rifle is determined by the cycle time. The maximum rate of fire for a semiautomatic rifle the rate of fire is limited by the ability of the shooter to repeatedly pull the trigger and the cycle time. From a limitation stand point it takes a normal shooter much longer to repeatedly pull the trigger than it does for the typical semiautomatic gun to cycle. A bump stock will allow the shooter to repeatedly pull the trigger faster than normal causing the rate of fire from a semiautomatic rifle to increase as previously stated by the judges.

    all it does is increase the trigger pull speed. It still needs a trigger pull for each round, unlike a full auto seer. So now they are stating how fast you can pull a trigger determines if you have a full auto or not? My head hurts. for how many seconds? stupid.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    So where does this interesting case go from here?

    It gets sent back to the District Court where the Court will proceed with the case. They lost a preliminary injunction, but may ultimately win the case if they argue it correctly. The DC case (Guedes) did not appear to alter their arguments and lost. The DC case is currently at the Circuit Court level (appellate level between the District Court and SCOTUS).
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    all it does is increase the trigger pull speed. It still needs a trigger pull for each round, unlike a full auto seer. So now they are stating how fast you can pull a trigger determines if you have a full auto or not? My head hurts. for how many seconds? stupid.

    One of the dissenting judges in this case made the comment that a bump stock increases the rate of fire, but that does not make it a machine gun. Another poster claimed that a bump stock does not increase the rate of fire. I agree with the judge that a bump stock does increase the rate of fire for the typical semiautomatic firearm. I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that a bump stock is a machine gun. Neither the Courts, nor the ATF are making a determination of a machine gun based on how fast you can pull the trigger.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,869
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom