DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cargill vs Garland

The 5th circuit decided this case recently.

In essence they decided that bump stocks are not machine guns and the ATF erred in calling them machine guns, especially after saying they were not for over a decade in written opinions. The recent decision was en banc.

Garland has a submitted a rather lengthy (161 pages) writ to SCOTUS requesting the court to have a look, and Cargill has respond with a Brief of support. Since you have the USAG requesting SCOTUS to accept the case and the defendant also supporting the request the chances on this one go up a little. This appears to be more a Chevron type case which could end up being held until the Loper Bright Enterprises case is heard since it was already granted. SCOTUS could deny the request which would leave this ruling only in force in the 5th circuit but would be citable precedent in other circuits.

Another interesting case.

Yes, it's interesting when someone makes something that turns a semi automatic weapon in to operating the same as an automatic weapon and a court rules that isn't so. Just like this does. I mean that doesn't make this gun operate like an automatic, right?

It is particularly interesting when a executive agency promulgates rules that have the force of law that contravene the will of Congress, especially when creating the laws out of thin air put people in jeopardy of Federal felonies when they were previously told that were no rules or laws broken.

Machine gun has a very specific definition:


This is what Congress decided and codified. The ATF simply decided to ignore the legal definition and make up their own. They were, in the eyes of the 5th circuit, wrong.

So does this part make a semi automatic weapon operate as an automatic weapon or not?

Does an Executive agency have the authority to change the law Congress created or not?

So you answer a question with a question. A not so artful dodge.

You use a question to dodge the reality.

To answer your question, no, bump stocks do not create a machine gun. Now answer mine.

That wasn't the question. I'll try again although actually answering a question directly is something you'll avoid like the plague....


That's the question.

To answer your question, again, no bump stocks do not make a machine gun. The part you showed looks like a lightning link and does, in fact, make a machine gun. Though to be fair, lighting links are finicky and usually require a bit of tweaking to get right for a specific gun. But the Cagill case isn't about lighting links.

So do you think executive agencies should be able to change law by fiat?

I think agencies have the right to be able to challenge laws in the wording of, or through their findings and decisions. We sat back and watched state governments challenge abortion rights by increasingly writing laws that went directly against the Roe vs Wade decision for years. they knew their decisoons went against federal law. In the end, no matter what state or agency that challenges the status quo writes or decides, the final say always rests in the hands of the court.

To challenge such laws in their decisions the answer is yes. But as with states passing abortion laws that didn't line up with Roe vs Wade, the court, just like in this case, always has the final decision.

So you think executive agencies can just ignore laws and create their own. Got it.

You are, again, showing your disdain for the COTUS.

I thought you comprehended English? I said they have the right to challenge laws with their findings and decisions but that the court will always have the final say. There was nothing that even hinted at disdain for anyone.

That's what I get for trying to civil to someone who can't comprehend such a concept.

They can challenge laws, through the courts like everyone else. They cannot simply change them, they are tasked with enforcing laws.

Again your comprehension of all of this is twisted cause pumpkin doesn't like it.

What part didn't I like? Where did you see me disagree with the court ruling? Are you trying to say that states who purposefully wrote laws that violated Roe vs Wade weren't passing laws that were opposed to federal laws in order to get Roe vs Wade challenged? At least I'm not favoring one over the other. In both cases they made up laws that they knew were opposed to current federal law. In both cases I'm sure they knew those would end up in the court process. One is no different than the other. It's not me picking and choosing which side was wrong for that and which side was right for that. That seems to be you.

What does the Dobbs decision have to do with all this? You cannot even keep on a simple topic. Punt, deflect, move goal posts, toss a couple of straw arguments.

I have not mentioned STATES doing anything. I have pointed out, and will again since you seem to think ignoring things makes them disappear, that this is about a Federal EXECUTIVE agency ignoring law created by congress. This seems to be something you condone. Of course you won't actually say that as you would go on record as being even more anti COTUS than you are now.

I have made it quite clear what I condone. I condone states, local government and agencies to be able to challenge federal laws through their rulings. I condone that in the end courts have the final say. All of those bodies have ignored federal law to create their own in order to challenge existing laws. I understand why you wish not to discuss the matter from a big picture view and would like to keep it contained to your little box.

So, then, in this case a Federal agency promulgated a rule and was called to task over it by the courts. The big picture is that executive agencies should not defy congress and CHANGE the law that was created. That is not how this is supposed to work. There are instances that congress gives leeway to those agencies, but that leeway does NOT include changing existing law. They should go through the courts like every one else in those cases.

Really? Did the states who changed abortion laws in violation of Roe vs Wade take it through the courts first? Did someone give states the right to pass laws that violate federal laws without taking it to court first?

And you chewed me out for supposedly not staying on topic? And you take this thread, about guns, and turn it into abortion? Laughable.

I didn't expect you to comprehend that when you're talking about someone trying to change laws by challenging existing law through any rulings that circumvent the court system all such examples are relative to the discussion. Maybe FATE or Memphis have a good meme to show something flying right over your head.

It's not like he thinks he is supposed to be bound by his own standards for everyone else.

Awe, trolling again. Actually this post is more for arch than it is you because you know better already.

We both know the discussion became circumventing the court system to impose laws that went counter to existing laws. You wished to restrict that to one example and not recognize that it's a tactic frequently used and there are many such examples of that being done. State abortion laws were on such example of the very same thing. One could also include more restrictive gun laws and marijuana laws of where laws have been passed to circumvent the legal process by passing laws that are clearly counter to existing federal law. In all of such cases it's to push these things into the court system while circumventing the court system first as you have proposed should be done. The right does it, the left does it, they all do it.

But as I have said before, I understand why you would wish to place blame on someone else for discussing this from a big picture view which is totally in line with the topic at hand.

And we both know you were fine with the BATFE circumventing the law on machine guns. Get your crap straight. Or better yet, get a hobby. I feel for you.

Awww poor little Pit. Treats people like trash then claims others troll him in response.

Since you can't let go of it.

Roe struck down existing state laws. Roe did not create a law. What should have happened and did not is the Congress should have created laws defining and protecting abortion. They did not. The abdicated their responsibility in this. Dobbs reversed the ruling in Roe. It didn't strike down any Congressional mandate (law). It merely removed the roadblock created by SCOTUS that blocked states.

Cargill struck down an executive rule that was counter to the existing law.

The two are different vastly different in the scope of how they work.

Poor arch. He can't figure out what the hell is going on.

If you actually believe that states weren't purposefully enacting laws counter to Roe vs Wade purposefully to get it brought back up before the SCOTUS I have some ocean front property in Arizona for sale. And I'll make you a great deal on it too.

If you think that is what I said you are willfully ignoring what I said and creating a narrative to have something to argue. I know, this is a standard day that ends in "y".

Well, this is interesting. You've all heard that a rose by any other name is still a rose? Right

They (the courts) are saying it's not a machine gun because to get it to fire say, 10 rounds, you literally have to pull the trigger 10 times.

If I have this right, a Bump
Stock allows you to pull the trigger very very fast. So, technically, it's not a machine gun.

Except, the end result is damn near identical.. See the video below...



I say it sure looks like it could do about the same amount of damage a machine gun does.

Probably ought to ban belt loops on jeans/shorts also, as you can do the same thing with your thumb in a belt loop.

The courts are using the specific definition that Congress has created to define machine gun. The definition has nothing to do with how much "damage" could be done. It does have to do with the number of rounds, more than one, that are discharged on a trigger pull. This cannot simply be changed by executive fiat, which is the more general point of this case. Yes, bump stocks allow one to pull the trigger faster, so do belt loops.

Sorry, but I don't get that.., can you show me what you mean?

So are you saying that the ability to fire off that many rounds in that short a period of time wouldn't cause more damage than if you didn't have that ability?

As for the Beltloop, wow, never heard of that.. but then, I'm not really much of a gun guy. I do have to say, at the end of that Video, that kid sounds a lot like Goofy from the cartoons I grew up watching. Yikes.

You may not be a gun guy, but you are a car guy. You get excitement from fast cars.

It's the same rush.

No, I am saying that the "amount of damage" one can do is not part of the statute that defines a machinegun. It isn't a consideration on this.

Back when the MD General Assembly was pontificating about a ban (before the Federal one) some legicritter had a talk at a coffee house to drum up support. A couple fellas I know went to pass out bump sticks to show how easy this is to start with.

So it all centers around the term "trigger pull" and has nothing to do with the actual function of the weapon when a bump stock is used. Good to know.

It all centers around how Congress defined machinegun which I posted upthread.

So it has nothing to do with how the weapon actually functions. Thanks again.

Actually the function is part of the definition. Just because you don't like the definition doesn't mean it is made up.

I never said it was made up. I never said I didn't like it. I said it is based on the terminology and not the way that weapon functions in and of itself.

Yeah except you need a license and insurance in case you kill somebody with the car.