Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2021, 7:22 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Those pesky courts keep overturning the ATF - Bumpstocks

Not sure how military courts play with civilian courts, but this ruling is pretty direct on the finding that a bump stock is NOT a MG. Kind of stabs at the heart of the chevron deference.


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ot-machine-gun
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-12-2021, 7:45 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,855
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Happily, military courts are the most non political courts in the country...
__________________
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” ----Sen. Barry Goldwater
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-12-2021, 8:49 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 15,282
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I've seen a beer belly do a bumpstock effect. Better ban fat guys.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-12-2021, 9:58 AM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 851
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
Happily, military courts are the most non political courts in the country...
Give them time. As the military and the Brass becomes more woke, this too may sadly change.
__________________


ARFrog
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-12-2021, 10:00 AM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,644
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

they still follow the chevron principle its just that a bump stock is not really an edge case a machine gun is clearly defined so there is no ambiguity

unlike the FART trigger i think that is an edge case

Last edited by bohoki; 09-12-2021 at 10:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-12-2021, 4:34 PM
rp55's Avatar
rp55 rp55 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,819
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

The US Court of Military Appeals is in a separate track one step below the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
Not sure how military courts play with civilian courts, but this ruling is pretty direct on the finding that a bump stock is NOT a MG. Kind of stabs at the heart of the chevron deference.


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...ot-machine-gun
__________________
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j302/rpwhite55/guns/member13443.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-12-2021, 5:54 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
The US Court of Military Appeals is in a separate track one step below the Supreme Court.

Of course a bumpstock is not a machine gun.

Any dufus with an IQ of 75 and half a brain gets that.

That's not the question though...

The real question is:

Are bumpstocks a modifying device for the purpose of temporarily moving an item from that category of NON-NFA to NFA?

Try not to get confused, distracted, or side-tracked.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-12-2021, 7:02 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Of course a bumpstock is not a machine gun.
Uh...

Quote:
The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bumpstock-type devices—meaning ‘‘bump fire’’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics—are ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger...
What you're arguing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit
That's not the question though...

The real question is:

Are bumpstocks a modifying device for the purpose of temporarily moving an item from that category of NON-NFA to NFA?

Try not to get confused, distracted, or side-tracked.

=8-|
...is tantamount to: "Do the full auto parts, once installed or even in concurrent possession, move an AR-15 into the category of an NFA controlled firearm?"

In that sense, the next line in the above source addresses that question and the answer, as of 2018, is "Yes"...

Quote:
Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger...
The problem is that 'single pull of the trigger' and, prior to 2018, ATF had decided bump stocks did not qualify due to the fact that, by design, you get one round for each "function of the trigger." That does not meet the definition of "machine gun" under existing, Federal Law...

Quote:
(b) Machinegun

The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Thus, it's not about 'temporarily' or even 'permanently.' It's about possession and the ability to convert it to automatic fire. Since automatic weapons are controlled under the NFA, the issue is whether it is a 'machine gun' under the definition provided in the law.

That is the basis of the challenge; i.e., that it does not meet the definition and it requires Legislative action to change the definition, not bureaucratic interpretation.

Try not to get confused, distracted, or side-tracked by how YOU understand something vs. what is actually being challenged. From the OP article...

Quote:
Here's an excerpt from the decision:

"Instead, the President directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] to issue a new interpretation of a rule—that contradicted the ATF's previous interpretation—governing legislation from the 1930s. This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes."

The court is essentially laying out the fact that the ATF bypassed Congress to create law. They go on to explain that:

"In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act [FOPA], banning possession of machine guns not owned before 1986. FOPA also banned any parts, to include frames and receivers, which were part of a machine gun or were designed for converting a weapon into a machine gun. The current statute at issue is 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), which defines what a machine gun is. Due to having a bump stock, Appellant was charged under the statute which states that a machine gun is "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-13-2021, 8:14 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,644
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

an english teacher needs to void this for vagueness because their definition of machinegun is self referencing

so a machinegun could be "parts" and the "parts" of the "parts" ad infinitum so basically every molecule of steel or aluminum is a machine gun

then it gets weird when they talk of the motivation of the element itself
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2021, 8:50 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Uh...



What you're arguing...



...is tantamount to: "Do the full auto parts, once installed or even in concurrent possession, move an AR-15 into the category of an NFA controlled firearm?"

In that sense, the next line in the above source addresses that question and the answer, as of 2018, is "Yes"...



The problem is that 'single pull of the trigger' and, prior to 2018, ATF had decided bump stocks did not qualify due to the fact that, by design, you get one round for each "function of the trigger." That does not meet the definition of "machine gun" under existing, Federal Law...



Thus, it's not about 'temporarily' or even 'permanently.' It's about possession and the ability to convert it to automatic fire. Since automatic weapons are controlled under the NFA, the issue is whether it is a 'machine gun' under the definition provided in the law.

That is the basis of the challenge; i.e., that it does not meet the definition and it requires Legislative action to change the definition, not bureaucratic interpretation.

Try not to get confused, distracted, or side-tracked by how YOU understand something vs. what is actually being challenged. From the OP article...
Again . . . the real issue is whether or not a bumpstock takes a NON-NFA item and - ALBEIT - makes it temporarily an NFA item.

You can spend all day talking about the definition of machine gun, chevron defense, the fact the ATF took two different positions at different times, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that that question will be at the forefront when it is hashed out in front of SCOTUS.

Despite all of the ATFs screwups, chevron defense and all, I can see SCOTUS saying that bumpstocks may be regulated under NFA as an attempt to take an arm that is commonly held and suitable for self-defense and modify it into something else that is either unusually dangerous or more suited as a weapon of war.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-14-2021, 1:25 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,644
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again . . . the real issue is whether or not a bumpstock takes a NON-NFA item and - ALBEIT - makes it temporarily an NFA item.

You can spend all day talking about the definition of machine gun, chevron defense, the fact the ATF took two different positions at different times, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that that question will be at the forefront when it is hashed out in front of SCOTUS.

Despite all of the ATFs screwups, chevron defense and all, I can see SCOTUS saying that bumpstocks may be regulated under NFA as an attempt to take an arm that is commonly held and suitable for self-defense and modify it into something else that is either unusually dangerous or more suited as a weapon of war.

=8-|
someone just needs to show a one armed man firing it then they will realize its not a "machine gun"

somehow a bump stock makes your left arm the "machine gun"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2021, 2:14 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,661
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rp55 View Post
The US Court of Military Appeals is in a separate track one step below the Supreme Court.
This is a true statement, but we need to remember that the case being discussed here was not decided by the Court of Military Appeals.

It remains to be seen if the government will take it to the Court of Military Appeals.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2021, 3:02 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,437
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
This is a true statement, but we need to remember that the case being discussed here was not decided by the Court of Military Appeals.

It remains to be seen if the government will take it to the Court of Military Appeals.
From the link provided above.

Quote:
On Sept. 9, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns in the case U.S. v. Ali Alkazahg. This is a big win for gun owners and reaffirms the fact that items that are not machine guns by legal definition cannot be classified as machine guns simply because the ATF "feels" like they meet the definition.
Rick, could you please clarify the hierarchy of the Military Court System?

Individuals such as myself know little to nothing concerning this.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2021, 3:31 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,661
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post

Rick, could you please clarify the hierarchy of the Military Court System?

Individuals such as myself know little to nothing concerning this.
Pacrat,

Each of the services has their own Court of Criminal Appeals that hears appeals from their trial courts. There is a Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, an Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and even a Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Court of Military Appeals (COMA) hears appeals from the service appellate courts.

Decisions of COMA may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The "Bump Stock" decision being discussed here came from the Navy -Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and not from COMA as the linked article suggests.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2021, 5:42 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again . . . the real issue is whether or not a bumpstock takes a NON-NFA item and - ALBEIT - makes it temporarily an NFA item.

You can spend all day talking about the definition of machine gun, chevron defense, the fact the ATF took two different positions at different times, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that that question will be at the forefront when it is hashed out in front of SCOTUS.

Despite all of the ATFs screwups, chevron defense and all, I can see SCOTUS saying that bumpstocks may be regulated under NFA as an attempt to take an arm that is commonly held and suitable for self-defense and modify it into something else that is either unusually dangerous or more suited as a weapon of war.

=8-|
For someone who has been adamantly denouncing all the briefs filed in another case as "not answering the question," you seem to be conveniently ignoring the questions actually posed in this case. Whatever may or may not come up related to SCOTUS, the issue, in this case, was...

Quote:
...Appellant raises two questions of error. He argues first, the Government failed to state an offense when it alleged that he possessed a machine gun, because the "bump stock" he possessed did not meet the definition of "machinegun" under... and, second, that the military judge erred...
Those were the two issues presented and the decision hinged on the first in terms of the court determining, not whether it met the definition, but whether the determination was made properly. What you can "see" SCOTUS saying is something that has long been questioned vis a vis your 'unique' interpretation of what they purportedly claimed in Heller. But, we don't even need to go there.

Likewise, we don't even need to go over whether a bump stock does or doesn't meet the definition. Again, the 'time' element you keep citing is irrelevant as simple possession of the parts is sufficient under the definition.

What many can see is a 'punt' from SCOTUS similar to what this court did and what Dianne Feinstein warned Trump about specifically. The 'punt?' Ruling on an issue of process; i.e., the court 'altered' the question, ruling that ATF exceeded its authority and, in essence and in fact, exercised Legislative authority, unconstitutionally 'writing' Legislation. Thus, they determined that the statute is ambiguous and would not "step into the role of the legislature when the legislature has not been clear" in terms of determining the technical accuracy of the interpretation itself.

The question you pose is something different. While we might agree that such should be the question, that wasn't the question posed or addressed in the case we're speaking about in this thread. As you opined in another case...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The Question for Cert:

"Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for
concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."


The parties submitting briefs did not directly answer the question.

Will SCOTUS address it if the parties that failed to answer the question in their briefs continue to do so in the hearing?

=8-|

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-14-2021 at 5:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2021, 6:17 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,437
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Pacrat,

Each of the services has their own Court of Criminal Appeals that hears appeals from their trial courts. There is a Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, an Army Court of Criminal Appeals, and Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, and even a Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Court of Military Appeals (COMA) hears appeals from the service appellate courts.

Decisions of COMA may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The "Bump Stock" decision being discussed here came from the Navy -Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and not from COMA as the linked article suggests.
Thank You for your concise explanation. One further question, if I may.

Are the individual services COA, one step above "Courts Martials" in their individual service, or is there an interim court step involved?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-14-2021, 6:21 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
For someone who has been adamantly denouncing all the briefs filed in another case as "not answering the question," you seem to be conveniently ignoring the questions actually posed in this case. Whatever may or may not come up related to SCOTUS, the issue, in this case, was...



Those were the two issues presented and the decision hinged on the first in terms of the court determining, not whether it met the definition, but whether the determination was made properly. What you can "see" SCOTUS saying is something that has long been questioned vis a vis your 'unique' interpretation of what they purportedly claimed in Heller. But, we don't even need to go there.

Likewise, we don't even need to go over whether a bump stock does or doesn't meet the definition. Again, the 'time' element you keep citing is irrelevant as simple possession of the parts is sufficient under the definition.

What many can see is a 'punt' from SCOTUS similar to what this court did and what Dianne Feinstein warned Trump about specifically. The 'punt?' Ruling on an issue of process; i.e., the court 'altered' the question, ruling that ATF exceeded its authority and, in essence and in fact, exercised Legislative authority, unconstitutionally 'writing' Legislation. Thus, they determined that the statute is ambiguous and would not "step into the role of the legislature when the legislature has not been clear" in terms of determining the technical accuracy of the interpretation itself.

The question you pose is something different. While we might agree that such should be the question, that wasn't the question posed or addressed in the case we're speaking about in this thread. As you opined in another case...
It's sad that people can be so dense as to not realize what the actual fundamental question is - the very same question everyone is trying to ignore.

Anyone with an IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock is NOT a machine gun.

That same person with IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock temporarily turns a non NFA arm into an NFA arm.

And if you think SCOTUS has an IQ less than 75, well good luck with that.

I myself would not bet on it.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-14-2021, 9:23 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's sad that people can be so dense as to not realize what the actual fundamental question is - the very same question everyone is trying to ignore.

Anyone with an IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock is NOT a machine gun.

That same person with IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock temporarily turns a non NFA arm into an NFA arm.

And if you think SCOTUS has an IQ less than 75, well good luck with that.

I myself would not bet on it.

=8-|
What's sad is that you can't even see I'm holding you to your own standard as expressed on the other thread.

The question, as framed by the court in the case this thread is based on, wasn't whether it met the definition. The court clearly ruled that the statute is ambiguous. You and I agree that it's not ambiguous and it is eminently clear; but that's not what the court held.

As a result, they changed the question/issue from what was claimed by the appellant to one of process; i.e., that they weren't going to interpret the statute for 'clarity' and, thus, ATF should not have done so either as such is a Legislative function, outside that agency's Constitutional authority.

Thus, spending your time harping on what you feel the 'fundamental question' is means you are conducting yourself in precisely the same manner you have gone to great lengths to excoriate those filing briefs in the other case over. Just as in your post an hour ago on that thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Wow, the three briefs against are just as bad as the briefs supporting the petitioners.

The get it right recognizing the concealed carry question as framed by SCOTUS . . .

. . . BUT . . .

. . . proceed to straight up say that SCOTUS got it all wrong in DC v. Heller.

And of course they ignored the elephant in the corner:

Open carry and handguns that by design and intent can be categorized as non-concealable.

Wow...just wow.

=8-(
You are overtly ignoring how the military court changed the question from that presented to something they were more 'comfortable' ruling on, then excoriating those who point that out for being, I guess, naive or stupid enough to ignore what you deem to be the fundamental question, the very same question the court in this thread punted on.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-14-2021, 9:54 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,661
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Thank You for your concise explanation. One further question, if I may.

Are the individual services COA, one step above "Courts Martials" in their individual service, or is there an interim court step involved?
Pacrat,

The military justice system works a little differently than the civilian justice system, so its kinda hard to give a concise reply to your question. Two things that are different are: 1) Article 15 proceedings and 2) The Convening Authority.

When a service member does something stupid and his/her/its superiors decide that they wish to fang the member, they get to decide between a non-judicial punishment under Article 15, or a Court Martial. There really isn't a civilian equivalent to Article 15. It disposes of the matter without the creation of a criminal record. But unlike civilian diversion programs, the offender can still get jail time without being convicted.

If they elect to conduct a Court Martial, those come in three different flavors, Summary, Special and General. Summary and Special Courts Martial are roughly equivalent to misdemeanor trial courts. A General Court Martial is equivalent to a felony trial.

Unlike a civilian trial, a military trial has a Convening Authority, typically the offender's commanding officer, or superior in the chain of command with the authority to order the Court Martial. If the offender is found guilty, the Convening Authority must approve the verdict and sentence. If the Convening Authority is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Court Martial, they can set aside the verdict or reduce the sentence. That's kinda like an appeal, even though it isn't an appeal. This is a pretty significant difference from the civilian world. The Convening Authority isn't a judge, or even a lawyer (unless the offender was a member of a court or legal staff).

Once the Convening Authority has approved a verdict and sentence, then the chain of further appeal is to the service's Appellate Court, COMA and then SCOTUS.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 09-14-2021 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-15-2021, 8:09 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What's sad is that you can't even see I'm holding you to your own standard as expressed on the other thread.

The question, as framed by the court in the case this thread is based on, wasn't whether it met the definition. The court clearly ruled that the statute is ambiguous. You and I agree that it's not ambiguous and it is eminently clear; but that's not what the court held.

As a result, they changed the question/issue from what was claimed by the appellant to one of process; i.e., that they weren't going to interpret the statute for 'clarity' and, thus, ATF should not have done so either as such is a Legislative function, outside that agency's Constitutional authority.

Thus, spending your time harping on what you feel the 'fundamental question' is means you are conducting yourself in precisely the same manner you have gone to great lengths to excoriate those filing briefs in the other case over. Just as in your post an hour ago on that thread...



You are overtly ignoring how the military court changed the question from that presented to something they were more 'comfortable' ruling on, then excoriating those who point that out for being, I guess, naive or stupid enough to ignore what you deem to be the fundamental question, the very same question the court in this thread punted on.
The problem is YOU FOLKS keep making your linchpin the following:

"Bumpstocks are not machine guns."

That's the hill you guys keeping point to - to die on.

Doesn't matter if it's a military case, a civil case or a criminal case. You can point to any case.

It doesn't matter what the definition is.

Remember folks:


"Intent"


While the bumpstock by design is NOT a machine gun, the intent of the bumpstock is to turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun - if only temporarily.

And that is what will cause the bumpstock to come under heavy scrutiny should it come before SCOTUS.

And I do not think it'll escape scrutiny - i.e., after SCOTUS slaps the ATF around a little with a "sternly worded paragraph", SCOTUS will then recognize the regulation of bumpstocks as an NFA item.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-15-2021, 9:40 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The problem is YOU FOLKS keep making your linchpin the following:

"Bumpstocks are not machine guns."

That's the hill you guys keeping point to - to die on.

Doesn't matter if it's a military case, a civil case or a criminal case. You can point to any case.

It doesn't matter what the definition is.

Remember folks:


"Intent"


While the bumpstock by design is NOT a machine gun, the intent of the bumpstock is to turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun - if only temporarily.

And that is what will cause the bumpstock to come under heavy scrutiny should it come before SCOTUS.

And I do not think it'll escape scrutiny - i.e., after SCOTUS slaps the ATF around a little with a "sternly worded paragraph", SCOTUS will then recognize the regulation of bumpstocks as an NFA item.

=8-|
So Im curious. If you change Bumpstock to Stabilizing brace and MG to SBR

Does all this play out the same way? Your logic on intent would seem to indicate so and if that's the case then the ATF can do pretty much whatever it wants by regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-15-2021, 5:24 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,079
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The problem is YOU FOLKS keep making your linchpin the following:

"Bumpstocks are not machine guns."

That's the hill you guys keeping point to - to die on.

Doesn't matter if it's a military case, a civil case or a criminal case. You can point to any case.

It doesn't matter what the definition is.

Remember folks:


"Intent"


While the bumpstock by design is NOT a machine gun, the intent of the bumpstock is to turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun - if only temporarily.

And that is what will cause the bumpstock to come under heavy scrutiny should it come before SCOTUS.

And I do not think it'll escape scrutiny - i.e., after SCOTUS slaps the ATF around a little with a "sternly worded paragraph", SCOTUS will then recognize the regulation of bumpstocks as an NFA item.

=8-|
I have no dog in the hunt insofar as bump stocks. However, I have consistently argued precisely what the military court ruled; i.e., that the ATF, at the behest of Trump, acted inappropriately. Whether Trump did so as a 'strategy' in terms of assuming the courts would negate it or out of some misguided notion, I can't say. What I have, repeatedly, observed is that even Dianne Feinstein, who we know wants all this stuff (including the guns themselves) gone, warned him he couldn't do it this way.

Insofar as meeting the existing definition, as the ATF said three times previously, it doesn't. You and I agree on that. Where you seem to be held up is in how the definition of "machine gun" is applied. It has nothing to do with 'timing' you keep incorporating and everything to do with the definition, contrary to what you assert...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Of course a bumpstock is not a machine gun.

Any dufus with an IQ of 75 and half a brain gets that.

That's not the question though...

The real question is:

Are bumpstocks a modifying device for the purpose of temporarily moving an item from that category of NON-NFA to NFA?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again . . . the real issue is whether or not a bumpstock takes a NON-NFA item and - ALBEIT - makes it temporarily an NFA item.

You can spend all day talking about the definition of machine gun, chevron defense, the fact the ATF took two different positions at different times, etc.

Doesn't change the fact that that question will be at the forefront when it is hashed out in front of SCOTUS.

Despite all of the ATFs screwups, chevron defense and all, I can see SCOTUS saying that bumpstocks may be regulated under NFA as an attempt to take an arm that is commonly held and suitable for self-defense and modify it into something else that is either unusually dangerous or more suited as a weapon of war.

=8-|
(It's Chevron Deference, not defense, by the way. Although Chevron Doctrine is also used. It's something applied by the courts rather than something asserted by the defendant.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's sad that people can be so dense as to not realize what the actual fundamental question is - the very same question everyone is trying to ignore.

Anyone with an IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock is NOT a machine gun.

That same person with IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock temporarily turns a non NFA arm into an NFA arm.

And if you think SCOTUS has an IQ less than 75, well good luck with that.

I myself would not bet on it.

=8-|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The problem is YOU FOLKS keep making your linchpin the following:

"Bumpstocks are not machine guns."

That's the hill you guys keeping point to - to die on.

Doesn't matter if it's a military case, a civil case or a criminal case. You can point to any case.

It doesn't matter what the definition is.

Remember folks:


"Intent"


While the bumpstock by design is NOT a machine gun, the intent of the bumpstock is to turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun - if only temporarily...
Perhaps you would now be willing to get past your continual, temporal references. Once again, simple possession is all that is required under the statute. Possession implies intent for the purposes of the statute and that intent has nothing to do with temporary or permanent. You could proffer the defense that you never intended to install the bump stock (or any of the other parts) and you could still find yourself convicted for constructive possession...

Quote:
Turnbough first argues that the government's evidence failed to establish his possession of the handmade .25 caliber handgun. He maintains that the government presented no evidence that he "received, knew about, possessed or had any control over" the handgun. (Def.'s Br. at 16). While this lack of evidence may demonstrate that the government failed to establish Turnbough's actual possession of the gun, possession under § 5861 may be either actual or constructive. United States v. Taylor, 728 F.2d 864, 868 (7th Cir.1984). Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at a given time to exercise dominion and control over an object, either directly or through others. Id. (citations omitted). The government may establish constructive possession by demonstrating that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion or control over the premises in which the contraband is concealed. Id. at 870; see also United States v. Perez, 897 F.2d 751, 754 (5th Cir.1990) (constructive possession established by demonstrating that the defendant had dominion and control over the vehicle).
While there's some debate regarding that under California law, bear in mind that these are Federal charges.

Now, while you and I may agree that a bump stock is not a "machine gun," as I showed you, since 2018, it meets the definition insofar as how ATF interprets that definition. Thus, again, it has nothing to do with the time frame and is tied to possession. Why? My assumption has always been that if intent were the key element, it would place a burden on prosecutions which would be difficult to overcome, thus rendering the restrictions largely ineffectual.

Thus, intent is drawn from possession. From ATF's National Firearms Handbook, p. 14...

Quote:
The definition of machinegun also includes a combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. An example of a firearm meeting this section of the definition is a semiautomatic AR15 rifle possessed with an M16 bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector and selector. If the semiautomatic AR15 is assembled with the described M16 parts and the rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, the weapon possessed in conjunction with the M16 parts, whether assembled or not, is a machinegun as defined.
In that sense, were the Legislature to incorporate paper clip, rubber band, or any of a number of other items in the statute, possession of the item in conjunction with the firearm could be used to infer intent to create a "machine gun." The key, as we know, is possession of a specific part or combination of parts. "The AR15 auto sear is a machine gun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)." (p. 140) Alternatively (p. 141, bold emphasis mine)...

Quote:
Any weapon which shoots automatically, more than 1 shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA). In addition, the definition of machine gun also includes any combination of parts from which a machine gun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person. An AR15 type assault rifle which fires more than one shot by a single function o the trigger is a machine gun under the NFA. Any machine gun is subject to the NFA and the possession of an unregistered machine gun could the possessor to criminal prosecution.
Which is why possession of an M16 bolt carrier group sans possession of the other parts is legal. You might consult this thread... ATF letter to Colt.

Note the continual reference to "definition" and "as defined" in all those citations and the pages dedicated to it in the case this thread is about. It's why the definition IS what matters. I would argue that, on a pragmatic level, the interpretation of the definition has become what matters. It's why we spend so much time examining the statutes and why we get so many threads regarding "Is this legal?" which refer to the definitions provided in the statutes.

It's why, in the case this thread is examining, the court punted regarding the assertion made by the appellant in this case...

Quote:
...Appellant raises two questions of error. He argues first, the Government failed to state an offense when it alleged that he possessed a machine gun, because the "bump stock" he possessed did not meet the definition of "machinegun" under... and, second, that the military judge erred...
Instead, addressing the process by which the definition was interpreted vis a vis bump stocks. Does the bump stock allow for full auto fire? As the military court said, to them, it doesn't, but they do not presume to divine legislative intent and neither should the ATF. If the Legislature wants to include specific parts within the definition of what constitutes a "machine gun," then the Legislature, not the court and not the ATF, must do so. Put another way, when the definition was established legislatively, there were parts which were commonly understood as allowing conversion to full auto fire when assembled in combination. If 'new' parts have now entered the market which allow for "full auto" fire (real or simulated), then the Legislature will have to specifically incorporate them rather than leaving it 'ambiguous' so that a court or a regulatory agency can simply 'interpret' the definition as incorporating them.

What SCOTUS may or may not do with that is sheer speculation.

It is not what your understanding is or my understanding or anyone with an IQ of 75's understanding is regarding whether a bump stock is a "machine gun." Such fails to address the question, even as you pose it. There's every chance it's not even about how SCOTUS may understand it. It could very well come down to what SCOTUS divines as the Legislature's understanding and intent vis a vis how they crafted the definition and the method by which that definition is being interpreted vs. the clarity (or lack thereof) provided by the Legislature.

But, again, that's speculation and only reflects what the court, in this case, addressed by altering the question as asserted by the appellant. You know, the standard you have been continuously and obstreperously imposing on the other thread and which you are sidestepping here by imposing what you perceive to be 'the fundamental question' SCOTUS will deal with. They may well do so; but, dictating to SCOTUS what they will address and/or predicting what they will decide upon is a perilous endeavor.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-15-2021 at 6:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-20-2021, 8:08 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,644
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
It's sad that people can be so dense as to not realize what the actual fundamental question is - the very same question everyone is trying to ignore.

Anyone with an IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock is NOT a machine gun.

That same person with IQ of 75 can tell that a bumpstock temporarily turns a non NFA arm into an NFA arm.

And if you think SCOTUS has an IQ less than 75, well good luck with that.

I myself would not bet on it.

=8-|
depends on the science i say what they need to do is put a force gauge on someones finger use the device and count the pulses of the force gauge and if they correspond to the number of rounds fired to me that seems like absolute proof that it was firing one shot per trigger pull

this should also work with the fart triger too
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-21-2021, 1:44 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
depends on the science i say what they need to do is put a force gauge on someones finger use the device and count the pulses of the force gauge and if they correspond to the number of rounds fired to me that seems like absolute proof that it was firing one shot per trigger pull

this should also work with the fart triger too
Funny how under your scenario, you end up going full circle.

Just another reminder that no matter how hard the "powers that be" try - human ingenuity will simply find another way OR just reveal the obvious.

George Carlin's "HBO" special with his list of a 100+ forbidden words was brilliant in pointing this out.

Kinda wonder if "Liberals" are thinking that bumpstocks justify gun control that bans semi-automatics and allows bolt-action and single shot rifles only.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-21-2021, 12:38 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,644
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

any argument taken to the extreme will always end up in semantics
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:17 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical