Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit Bump Stock Case)

[jcutonilli]

The Guedes case (DC Circuit) has now petitioned for cert also.

Search

 

[Inigoes]

Cert Granted

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110323zr_5if6.pdf

22-976 GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. V. CARGILL, MICHAEL

 

[Mike OTDP]

This will get interesting, because it touches ex post facto law, the limits of regulatory authority when felony crime is involved, and both 2A and 5A issues.

FWIW, it will almost certainly set the precedent that will decide the arm brace cases.

 

[Fushigi Ojisan]

The left is buttmad

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons

The justices will decide if bump stocks, devices that effectively convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic weapon, are legal.

www.vox.com

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

 

[coinboy]

The left is buttmad

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons

The justices will decide if bump stocks, devices that effectively convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic weapon, are legal.

www.vox.com

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Funny thing is that if you read the article, I believe it shows that they know that we are right.

 

[Bob A]

Funny thing is that if you read the article, I believe it shows that they know that we are right.

The article is a bit off-center anyway.

The author whines about poor definitions by lawmakers, then blames gun mfrs for taking actions within the letter of the law regarding bumpstocks, and goes on to complain about ghost guns, while overlooking a key element in the serialisation of AR firearms. (Don't anybody tell him).

As noted above, this decision will affect the issue of arm braces for ARs, which are both far more useful than bumpstocks, and far more likely to impinge upon the NFA and SBRs.

The guy concludes with a terrifying bit of Panic Prose:

"Indeed, Bruen creates a perverse incentive for both gun manufactures and gun owners. If a new, extremely dangerous weapon is invented tomorrow — or if an existing, equally dangerous weapon is briefly made legal tomorrow — people who want to expand the scope of the Second Amendment have an incentive to distribute that weapon as quickly as possible.

Because once that weapon is “in common use,” it can no longer be banned."


Obviously he has overlooked the fact that there are numerous common use arms which are still effectively banned, despite Bruen.

All that said, it does seem to me that the NFA may be getting nibbled away, a small piece at a time.

 

[Inigoes]

Michael Cargill in his own words:

 

[Mike OTDP]

Ultimately, this case isn't about NFA, it's about whether or not ATF can effectively create felony law by regulatory fiat. Particularly when they are reversing previous regulations.

 

[Inigoes]

Ultimately, this case isn't about NFA, it's about whether or not ATF can effectively create felony law by regulatory fiat. Particularly when they are reversing previous regulations.

Kinda sounds like the DOJ, using civil law to create felons in Rahimi.

The various cases this term looks like the Administrative
state is going to get a haircut when it comes to Chevron doctrine.

 

[pcfixer]

Funny thing is that if you read the article, I believe it shows that they know that we are right.

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

This will be very interesting----Too Say the Least!

 

[krucam]

Plaintiff Cargill reporting that SCOTUS Arguments will be heard Feb 28th

 

[Fate]

This case will tell us a lot about how serious the USSC is about reigning in rogue agencies within our government. I expect them to find wiggle room and defend the status quo. I would be happy to be wrong.

 

[owldo]

The left is buttmad

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons

The justices will decide if bump stocks, devices that effectively convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic weapon, are legal.

www.vox.com

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

Yeah .. If Chevron gets overturned via Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce then Garland v. Cargill should become a moot point ... The number of federal regulations that would become void is mind boggling !

 

[Boondock Saint]

Moot.

 

[Boondock Saint]

Words matter, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[pcfixer]

Garland v. Cargill - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

This will be very interesting----Too Say the Least!

Took 5 months to grant petition.

Search

 

[Afrikeber]

Michael Cargill in his own words:

Right on brother, power to the people!
NOT the government.
I can solve my own problems just leave me the hell alone.

 

[delaware_export]

Just curious , but what part of this is mooted?

I am not a lawyer, so some detail would be appreciated. Thx!

Moot.

 

[Inigoes]

Just curious , but what part of this is mooted?

I am not a lawyer, so some detail would be appreciated. Thx!

I doubt it will be mooted if Chevron is overturned. The opinion will be succinctly in favor of Cargill, stating: "See Chevron".

 

[Allen65]

I doubt it will be mooted if Chevron is overturned. The opinion will be succinctly in favor of Cargill, stating: "See Chevron".

Would they issue a decision, or remand for redecision at CA level in light of changes to Chevron? And didn't GOV try to waive right to deference in anticipation of Chevron undergoing substantial change?