Fed. Court Judge denies injunction in "bump-stock" case

[Poke78]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ump-stock-ban-heres-what-you-need-to-n2542207

"Back in December, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation that changed definition of “machinegun” to include “bump-stock-type devices." Beginning March 26, owning or possessing a bump stock will be illegal."

"On Monday night, a federal court judge denied three separate preliminary injunction requests. The decision was a consolidated ruling in two cases, Firearms Policy Coalition v. Whitaker and Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Keep breathing...only the first round...More at the link above...

 

[Tanis143]

I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem correct. I thought that when a law is drafted, if there are no alternating definitions then the common definition for a word is used. If the definitions need updating, then only the legislative branch has the authority to change the law to include the definitions. In this case the judge basically said the ATF can change the definitions any time they choose to do so. How is that possible?

 

[Fyrtwuck]

I think they tried to pull a fast one. “As a single function of the trigger” if that wording were allowed, I think they could also interpret that to include binary triggers as well.

A binary trigger fires one round when pulled and another when released = A single function.

I could be wrong.

 

[Tanis143]

I think they tried to pull a fast one. “As a single function of the trigger” if that wording were allowed, I think they could also interpret that to include binary triggers as well.

A binary trigger fires one round when pulled and another when released = A single function.

I could be wrong.

Actually that is wrong. Due to the way the binary trigger works, pulling the trigger and releasing the trigger are considered two functions. The reason being is that you can pull the trigger (firing the first round), put the safety on, and release the trigger without any other rounds discharged. Now if you pulled the trigger and it fired two rounds before releasing the trigger that would be 2 rounds to 1 function.

 

[MacFromOK]

My understanding is that "trigger pull" has been the yardstick for decades. "Trigger release" simply wasn't mentioned.

Not a lawyer.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

To play devil's advocate, binary trigger simply wasn't mentioned either. When we create a "work-around" of an ATF ruling, tax regulation, etc. we are opening a door for .gov to also create their own "work-around".

 

[Tanis143]

To play devil's advocate, binary trigger simply wasn't mentioned either. When we create a "work-around" of an ATF ruling, tax regulation, etc. we are opening a door for .gov to also create their own "work-around".

I see your point, but the difference is that we created the work around in a legal manner. The same can not be said for the ATF.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

By definition, ATF is a legal manner, whether we like it or not.

 

[Uncle TK]

Examples
Congress pass tax laws, IRS & others write Regulations that have the same effect on the population as LAWS
ATF writes regulations that we are bound by

 

[NikatKimber]

By definition, ATF is a legal manner, whether we like it or not.

False. Ability to do so and support of government isn’t the same as legal.