Challenge to Trump administration's bump-fire stocks ban rejected

Reminder: In a few weeks, you either have to hand them over to the ATF, or face 10 years in prison. MAGA.

A federal judge rejected a challenge to the Trump administration’s ban on bump-fire stocks Monday.

United States District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich ruled against the plaintiffs in two consolidated federal lawsuits challenging a nationwide ban on the devices and asking for an injunction to prevent the ban from going forward and being enforced.

The ATF had previously concluded bump-fire stocks were merely a gun accessory or firearm part, not subject to federal regulation. They were tightly regulated, but legal.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed a new federal regulation in December that concluded that bump-fire stocks fall within the prohibition on machine guns, and therefore are illegal under federal law.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs – Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, David Codrea and their co-plaintiffs – argued that the ATF violated procedural requirements, and that Whitaker did not, at the time, have the authority to set forth a ban.

Following Monday’s ruling, the plaintiffs issued a statement saying that have filed a notice of appeal and will continue to challenge the ban.

“We are disappointed but unsurprised by the Court’s ruling tonight denying a temporary injunction to protect Americans from an unlawful and unconstitutional regulation,” they said in a joint statement.

2 Likes

And of course, you little cucks will turn in your bump-fire stocks, hypocritically shitting on “certain other states” for doing the same thing when they were asked to turn in their assault rifles.

Pathetic. A real man does what he says, and would refuse the law, but we all know you’ll do what the nanny state commands.

1 Like

Judges have far FAR too much power.

People complain about congress and the president, and don’t get me wrong they’re shitty too, but judges have even less accountability and can pretty much say fuck you to whatever they want and not face even a minor public outcry.

District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich

A Trump appointed judge protecting a Trump administration ban, no questions asked. The system works, BASED!

2 Likes

Get ready to spread those cheeks, America.

1533074039919

2 Likes

Yep! When reading this, I was thinking the same thing! Personally I think bump stocks are stupid, but whatever personal preference someone has is alright with me and its not illegal. Any infringement on the 2nd amendment is one infringement too many.

2 Likes

That’s the truth. The administration overreacted on this one. They should not have crossed this line. No matter what they do it will never be enough for the left. Perhaps they thought this was some kind of peace offering or olive branch? I can’t be sure but as you say, any infringement is one infringement too many.

1 Like

Why even turn them in? They aren’t tracked, serialized or registered on any list at all. This is totally unenforceable.

Shouldn’t she have recused herself because she was recently appointed by Trump?

Anyways, loser case, like 98% of 2nd Amend cases.

“ATF violated procedural requirements”

No one is going to win that one.

Seriously, has anyone ever brought the 2nd Amendment before the SCOTUS to get a ruling on what it means, with the help of an English teacher to “diagram” the sentence?

Yes, D.C. vs Heller (2008) is why states can’t ban handguns. The precedent set was that the 2nd amendment was not referring to state militias and was instead referring to individual citizens.

Well, I part ways with him on this. Banning bump stocks is idiotic. They going to ban belt loops next?

1 Like

Forgot the links. . . .

1 Like

I think the plaintiff made a tactical error. The issue really is not whether or not the ATF has the authority to reassess and/or reverse a previous ruling, the issue is do they have the authority to confiscate an item that they previously okayed instead of giving owners of said devices a grace period in which to apply for a Class III weapons/devices permit to keep them.

That is true. On the other hand they are pretty much useless too.

1 Like

Will only be enforceable when a crime is committed with a stolen weapon from a legal owner that has a bump stock on it…

Yeah I think it was Trump trying to appease a particular voting contingency why he elected to ban “bump stocks”. My guess is that his advisors probably told him it was a concession he could live with, seeing the many cases being made by gun experts where bump stocks were useless and nothing more than a cosmetic feature. However it does lead to other issues such as the pistol grip on Assault Rifles and the Semi automatic (which Feinstein has been trying to outlaw for years now) which if that were to be banned then gun owners would certainly coalesce in much larger numbers to fight it. I am wondering when the next false flag operation is going to occur that will raise the ire of left to reinforce the narrative of gun confiscation? Stay tuned! The left will never quit on this issue until they are rightfully put into their place which might be after a civil war erupts and many are killed in exacting that very cause.