Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumUS appeals court blocks ban on rapid-fire 'bump stocks'
https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-orleans-texas-state-government-b5990ed60ebb617055cc8d5c36a84050US appeals court blocks ban on rapid-fire bump stocks
By KEVIN McGILL
today
NEW ORLEANS (AP) A Trump administration ban on bump stocks devices that enable a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.
The decision doesnt have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.
The case was somewhat unique because the issue involves not the Second Amendment but the interpretation of federal statutes. Opponents of the ban argued that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now being defended by the Biden administration.
[...]
By KEVIN McGILL
today
NEW ORLEANS (AP) A Trump administration ban on bump stocks devices that enable a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.
The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.
The decision doesnt have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.
The case was somewhat unique because the issue involves not the Second Amendment but the interpretation of federal statutes. Opponents of the ban argued that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now being defended by the Biden administration.
[...]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2239 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US appeals court blocks ban on rapid-fire 'bump stocks' (Original Post)
sl8
Jan 2023
OP
The catch here is that the ATF does not have the authority to do what they did.
ManiacJoe
Jan 2023
#3
AndyS
(14,559 posts)1. The right wing court is turning the 2nd Amendment into a
suicide pact.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)2. will USSC hear the case ...
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)3. The catch here is that the ATF does not have the authority to do what they did.
The easy fix is for Congress to give them the authority or for Congress to make the legislative change. This is similar to the ruling in the earlier EPA case.