Posted on 02/27/2024 9:57:58 PM PST by CFW
Tomorrow, February 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. Cargill; the case challenges the administrative prohibition on bump stocks imposed by the Trump and Biden administrations, via interpretation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). The Supreme Court docket is here.
I co-authored an amicus brief in the case. The brief is on behalf on 9 U.S. Senators, led by Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), 10 law/history professors, and the Independence Institute (the Denver think tank where I work).
Garland v. Cargill v. is not a Second Amendment challenge. The case is about administrative law: is BATFE's new interpretation of the relevant federal statute (the National Firearms Act of 1934) correct?
Despite the procedural posture, some gun prohibition advocates have been sending frantic emails to prospective donors, warning that if Cargill prevails, all of the bump stock laws enacted by state and local governments will be overturned. This is false. Presuming that the state and local laws were enacted according to proper procedures by state legislatures or city councils, a decision in favor of Mr. Cargill would have no effect on these laws.
The right to arms appears in the case only by implication, as explained in an excellent brief by the Second Amendment Law Center and other civil rights organizations: if BATFE in Cargill can get away with an egregious misinterpretation of the National Firearms Act, then BATFE's next step could be to declare that all semiautomatic firearms are "machineguns."
There are two main issues in Cargill v. Garland: first, principles of statutory interpretation. Second, interpretation of the statute at issue. The Senators' amicus brief addresses both.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
The above article is from Reason. Another article is available at Scotusblog:
Bump-stock ban comes before Supreme Court
Cspan coverage of the oral argument will be available at the link below:
Program ID: 533774-1
Category: Public Affairs Event
Format: Judicial Proceeding
Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States
Will Air:
Feb 28, 2024 | 10:00am EST | C-SPAN 1
Airing Details
Feb 28, 2024 | 10:00am EST | C-SPAN 1
Feb 28, 2024 | 10:00am EST | C-SPAN RADIO
Feb 28, 2024 | 9:00pm EST | C-SPAN 1
Feb 29, 2024 | 2:00am EST | C-SPAN 1
Once again, because of what *one* person did, everybody else gets punished.
It is about the power of the regulatory state.
The life long deep state commies using the power to define and redefine words to scuttle the will of the people. Congress has abdicated their “law making” responsibility and must be forced to take it up once gain.
When power is in the hands of those who don't stand for election, then the system is broken.
Yes. Two Administrations used administrative power - deep state power - to ban bump stocks and support the ban.
Ah yes, one of Trump’s attacks on the 2nd Amendment opening the door to BATF’s ability to determine gun law ignoring Congress, the Constitution and precedent.
Did you know Trump did more in “gun control” than Obama?
It’s not for Obama not trying.
I’ve read so many excuses by posters for what President Trump. Excuses like “bump stocks are stupid” to “the proposed ban was forced by Paul Ryan” ( my favorite).
President Trump needs to be educated where appropriate regarding 2nd Amendment issues. He first inclination on several occasions has been to support gun control.
I’m sure he didn’t mean to. The Deep State tricked him. 4D Chess!
ping for the start of the hearing.
Brian Fletcher, attorney for the government, thinks all guns are scary and no one should have one (except government officials). That much is obvious.
If bump stocks are going to be “banned” that should be done by Congress through legislation.
I think Gorsuch gets it based upon his questions. He inquires as to why after almost a century the bump stock is suddenly characterized as a machine gun by an administratively agency. He also believes if necessary it should be done by Congress.
Gorsuch brings up the fact that a half million people depended upon previous interpretations that the bump stock was NOT a machine gun and the change in the rule turns them into a federal felon.
I wish judges were required to take in-depth firearms training classes so they would at least know the difference between a semiautomatic and automatic firearm.
It sounds like even the conservatives aren’t really grasping the technical aspects, which is key to understanding the plain language of the statute. Who knows how it shakes out but I’m not getting a positive vibe from the questions asked.
Freegards
The government’s attorney was good at sending the judges down rabbit holes that had little to do with the issue at hand.
Sonya sounds ill. Cough.
“Sonya sounds ill. Cough.”
Her voice is rough and crackly. In my experience that is a sign that her blood glucose is too high. I don’t think her diabetes is being properly managed.
Yup, seems to me they are getting into the weeds. Fingers crossed.
“I am altering my understanding of the statute, pray I don’t alter it any further...”
Freegards
She needs to go on a Keto diet, at least until Biden is out of the office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.