• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bump Stocks are not Machine Guns. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Conclusion
Consistent with our precedent and mandated by separation-of-powers and fair-notice concerns, we hold that an administering agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled to Chevron deference. Consequently, the district court erred by finding that the ATF’s Final Rule, which interpreted the meaning of a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. §5845(b), was entitled to Chevron deference. And because we find that “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical process of the trigger, we further hold that a bump stock cannot be classified as a machine gun because a bump stock does not enable a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Accordingly, we find that Plaintiffs-Appellants are likely to prevail on the merits and that that their motion for an injunction should have been granted.
Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
409
Location
Planet Earth
CoL - this is from the 6th but wasn't there another opinion from, IIRC, the 9th, that upheld the ban? Wouldn't that be likely to set up a review by the SC because of the directly opposed rulings?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Well it looks like the Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into 6th. circuit decision. Per West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) the SC stated that:
A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.
The Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984) doctrine has been curtailed.

The question is where in the law did congress give explicit authority to define what a machinegun is, a bump stock is or any other feature or item is. In effect, allowing the ATF authority to declare items outside the statutory definition of such item to be something that it is not.
 
Top