# 6 Circuit Court rules on bump stocks



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

At first glance, this looks like a big victory against illegal encroachment.
I'm still reading through the decision myself, so my own perspective is still building.
I'll have more opinions as I make my way through it.
The root of the ruling is found on page 33:


> Finding that “function” refers to the mechanical process, *we conclude that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845(b)*. We recognize that a bump stock increases a semiautomatic firearm’s rate of firing, possibly to a rate nearly equal to that of an automatic weapon. With a bump stock attached to a semiautomatic firearm, however, the trigger still must be released, reset, and pulled again before another shot may be fired. A bump stock may change how the pull of the trigger is accomplished, but it does not change the fact that the semiautomatic firearm shoots only one shot for each pull of the trigger. Guedes, 920 F.3d at 48 (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This remains true regardless of whether the shooter’s finger is stationary (when operating a bump-stock-attached semiautomatic firearm) or is moving (when operating a semiautomatic firearm without a bump stock). And it likewise remains true regardless of whether the physical force depressing the trigger comes from the shooter’s trigger finger’s pushing the trigger or the recoil energy of the firearm’s pushing the trigger against the shooter’s trigger finger. With or without a bump stock, a semiautomatic firearm is capable of firing only a single shot for each pull of the trigger and is unable to fire again until the trigger is released and the hammer of the firearm is reset.
> ...
> (page 34)
> In sum, based on the text and context of § 5845(b), and further supported by the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Staples, we conclude that the phrase “the single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, not the shooter’s pulling of the trigger. Consequently, a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun under § 5845(b).


Jarred over at Guns and Gadgets put the story out, and linked the court's decision.




As the GOA rep mentions in this video, this ruling does not yet mean that bump-stocks are legal, even in the 6th circuit. It means they are pushing the case back to the lower court to review and correct their original ruling. More to come...

6th Circuit Court Opinion: https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Gun-Owners-of-America-v.-Garland-Bump-Stock-Victory.pdf

If you're not a member of Gun Owners of America, I strongly urge you to become one. Unlike the feckless NRA, they do not compromise on gun rights.


----------



## Ranger710Tango (Feb 27, 2021)

Good for me, thanks for posting so I can join up.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

What's next a ruling for a rubber band or belt loop??


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

16,000 bump stocks suddenly wash up on the shores of lakes and ponds.


----------



## Nick (Nov 21, 2020)

I wasn't even aware that they had classified them as "machine guns".

I'm highly skeptical that the ban will be overturned, especially under this administration. 

Would be nice though, the 2A could use a win right about now.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Reading a bit further, it seems this court is unwilling, and considers it beyond their scope of authority, to issue the injunction GOA was seeking, at any level, but especially nationwide.
They are pushing it back down to the lower district court to issue it, and admit that it will likely be issued only for the few states that reside within the 6th Circuit at most, since other circuit courts (10th and D.C.) have already ruled in the ATF's favor.

Basically, until a court has the balls, or this is actually heard by SCOTUS, the best this ruling can mean is that bump stocks won't be banned at a federal level for the scope that the district court will decide.
The circuit court expects that the scope will not exceed the 4 states under the circuit's jurisdiction; Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky, but makes no guess on the actual scope applied.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Nick said:


> I wasn't even aware that they had classified them as "machine guns".


That was the only way to ban them without new legislation.
They tried to interpret them as an already banned item, a machine gun.
At Trump's direction, I'll add... to beat @Ranger710Tango to the punch.








😁


----------



## Nick (Nov 21, 2020)

Kauboy said:


> That was the only way to ban them without new legislation.
> They tried to interpret them as an already banned item, a machine gun.
> At Trump's direction, I'll add... to beat @Ranger710Tango to the punch.
> View attachment 113308
> ...



If there was ever a better emoji used at the appropriate time I've never seen it, lol.


----------



## Ranger710Tango (Feb 27, 2021)

Chipper said:


> What's next a ruling for a rubber band or belt loop??


Don’t think it can’t be done.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Ranger710Tango said:


> Don’t think it can’t be done.


Wanna bet they won't try?


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

That is unexpected good news, and it’s very heartening to know that a federal circuit court, can come to a reasonable conclusion, when it involves guns. 

But life in America has become unpredictable, at best, and the ruling is very refreshing. I expected that any federal circuit court would ban the stocks.


----------



## Ranger710Tango (Feb 27, 2021)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Wanna bet they won't try?


They can make laws against using anything to make the gun fire faster than your finger alone.

The same as “ it’s unlawful to use this product in a manner inconsistent to its labeling “ type law.


Now, will people follow it ? Can it be enforced ? They may ban the whole gun.....

Can you legally shoulder a pistol with a brace on it ? Not as I understand the law.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Ranger710Tango said:


> Can you legally shoulder a pistol with a brace on it ? Not as I understand the law.


According to the latest interpretation by the ATF in an opinion letter, yes you can, as shouldering the brace does not constitute a "redesign" of the brace.
How a thing is used does not alter the manufacturer's original design, only how it's used.
Adding/removing anything from the original design _could_ constitute a redesign, and get you into legal trouble.

Can they change their interpretation/opinion later? We all know the answer to that.
We need a court to finalize the pistol brace question, as this court did with the bump stock, so the ATF's opinion becomes irrelevant. But until the ATF reverts its current opinion about shouldering a brace, there isn't a reason to take them to court.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Bump stocks won't matter when "assault weapons" are banned, and all other firearms must be registered and a $200 tax paid on EACH ONE.

A wise soldier chooses his battles. Bump stocks are not high on my list, not when even a Winchester 94 may become illegal.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The point isn't whether they matter.
The point is, we have a court that is willing to rule on the actual law, as written.
That's a win.

Knowing which organizations will stand up for our rights is also a win.
GOA proved they will, even when the affected item seems like low-hanging fruit.
How much more support will they need when a law is written to affect firearms in general? Fighting the next AWB will take significantly more resources than the bump stock fight did.


----------



## Ranger710Tango (Feb 27, 2021)

Kauboy said:


> According to the latest interpretation by the ATF in an opinion letter, yes you can, as shouldering the brace does not constitute a "redesign" of the brace.
> How a thing is used does not alter the manufacturer's original design, only how it's used.
> Adding/removing anything from the original design _could_ constitute a redesign, and get you into legal trouble.
> 
> ...


It all comes down to enforcement. But with the current language I feel like an ATF agent could use it as a way to exercise power.

You know there are hundreds of not thousands of laws on the books that are not enforced. But they’re there if they want to use it.

Usually they don’t waste their time with enforcing laws that the DA and the judges will not prosecute.

But that sure would end a day of fun with the kids or whatever......I just like to know where I stand. In my work I’m able to talk to attorneys and get advice and universally their answer is comply with whatever they say and document everything.


----------



## Ranger710Tango (Feb 27, 2021)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Bump stocks won't matter when "assault weapons" are banned, and all other firearms must be registered and a $200 tax paid on EACH ONE.
> 
> A wise soldier chooses his battles. Bump stocks are not high on my list, not when even a Winchester 94 may become illegal.


sounds like you’re willing to take casualties when it’s not necessarily necessary.

In my opinion it’s best to fight for all your rights rather than just those you feel are important at the moment.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Generally speaking, I just want to be left alone. 

Government has repeatedly and incessantly pushed and pushed itself upon ME. Not the other way around. 

Government will not stop, this I know.


----------

