Fed. Court Judge denies injunction in "bump-stock" case

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Poke78

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,801
Reaction score
1,060
Location
Sand Springs
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ump-stock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-n2542207

"Back in December, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation that changed definition of “machinegun” to include “bump-stock-type devices." Beginning March 26, owning or possessing a bump stock will be illegal."

"On Monday night, a federal court judge denied three separate preliminary injunction requests. The decision was a consolidated ruling in two cases, Firearms Policy Coalition v. Whitaker and Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Keep breathing...only the first round...More at the link above...
 

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem correct. I thought that when a law is drafted, if there are no alternating definitions then the common definition for a word is used. If the definitions need updating, then only the legislative branch has the authority to change the law to include the definitions. In this case the judge basically said the ATF can change the definitions any time they choose to do so. How is that possible?
 

Fyrtwuck

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
9,959
Reaction score
2,921
Location
Blanchard
I think they tried to pull a fast one. “As a single function of the trigger” if that wording were allowed, I think they could also interpret that to include binary triggers as well.

A binary trigger fires one round when pulled and another when released = A single function.

I could be wrong.
 

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
I think they tried to pull a fast one. “As a single function of the trigger” if that wording were allowed, I think they could also interpret that to include binary triggers as well.

A binary trigger fires one round when pulled and another when released = A single function.

I could be wrong.

Actually that is wrong. Due to the way the binary trigger works, pulling the trigger and releasing the trigger are considered two functions. The reason being is that you can pull the trigger (firing the first round), put the safety on, and release the trigger without any other rounds discharged. Now if you pulled the trigger and it fired two rounds before releasing the trigger that would be 2 rounds to 1 function.
 

DavidMcmillan

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
9,393
Reaction score
13,611
Location
Oklahoma City
To play devil's advocate, binary trigger simply wasn't mentioned either. When we create a "work-around" of an ATF ruling, tax regulation, etc. we are opening a door for .gov to also create their own "work-around".
 

Tanis143

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Broken Arrow
To play devil's advocate, binary trigger simply wasn't mentioned either. When we create a "work-around" of an ATF ruling, tax regulation, etc. we are opening a door for .gov to also create their own "work-around".

I see your point, but the difference is that we created the work around in a legal manner. The same can not be said for the ATF.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom