Bumpstock Lawsuit Moves Forward as FPF Files Motion

Bumpstock Lawsuit Moves Forward as Firearms Policy Foundation Files Motion Seeking Invalidation of ATF Final Rule
Bumpstock Lawsuit Moves Forward as Firearms Policy Foundation Files Motion Seeking Invalidation of ATF Final Rule

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced today that it has filed its motion for summary judgment in Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, et al., asserting that the ATF exceeded its authority in redefining the term “machinegun”. The motion and other prior filings can be found at BumpstockCase.com.

The brief in support of the motion argues that ATF’s Final Rule, which redefined the term “machinegun” to include bump-stock type devices, contradicts the plain reading of the statutory definition. Additionally, the brief further argues that Chevron deference is inapplicable and constitutionally infirm.

“The government’s jigger-pokery attempt to turn lawful property into contraband and law-abiding citizens into criminals by usurping the Congress' power to enact criminal laws while eviscerating the separation of powers is beyond comprehension,” said attorney Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. “We are hopeful that the Court will invalidate the Final Rule and order the return of bump-stocks to those who surrendered them under protest.”

“As we continue litigating the definition of ‘machinegun,’ the government's position remains as absurd as ever. The suggestion that the ‘plain’ or even ‘best’ meaning of the definition took 80 years to discover and that generations of government experts at the Treasury and Justice Departments were too obtuse to understand such supposedly plain language does not even pass the straight-face test,” attorney Erik Jaffe of Schaerr Jaffe LLP explained. “Hopefully the court will recognize the error of that claim and invalidate the Final Rule. That result would comport with the long-standing contrary understanding of what constitutes a ‘machinegun,’ and the many legal and constitutional flaws of attempting to give ‘deference’ to an agency that denies it has or has exercised such discretion. And giving the Department of Justice such discretion to criminalize possession of lawful property that Congress itself has never prohibited would violate the Constitution in any event.”

“When it redefined the term ‘machinegun’, ATF ignored any plain meaning of what the law actually says,” commented attorney Adam Kraut. “Rather than applying the law as written by Congress, ATF conjured up imaginative interpretations of the statutory text at the direction of the President to reach a predetermined result. This cannot pass muster under any legal analysis.”


About Firearms Policy FoundationFirearms Policy Foundation logo

Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a grassroots 501(c)3 nonprofit public benefit organization. FPF’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition—especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms.

Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StLPro2A
StLPro2A
12 days ago

Pending this outcome, I’m fearing for my fingers and jean belt loops. Jerry Miculek should be scared $hitle$$ also. We’ve got enough guns. It’s the ammo we’re gonna need more of (what a target rich environment twill be) to straighten this freedom thingy out once and for all….a second time. We’re a bunch of coddled pansy a$$e$. Our Founding Fathers already would have been finished shooting a second time. They are ashamed of us. This BLM thingy may be what it takes to get us off dead center.

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable
12 days ago

Here’s my perspective. After the Los Vegas mass murder using bump stocks there were calls for all kinds of gun laws, and those pushing gun laws had a huge portion of the public’s sympathy. That was truly a horrible event. The President faced an almost unwinnable situation: do nothing, and be seen as not caring about the event, or sign legislation outlawing bump stocks, alienating his base. I believe he deftly directed the ATF to write this unsupportable definition of a machine gun, knowing it would eventually be struck down as an impermissible intrusion of the executive branch into the… Read more »

GUNS r US
GUNS r US
12 days ago

As far as I know, there is still no direct evidence that bump stocks were used in the Las Vegas shooting. Just because they were all over the place, doesn’t mean they were used. Anyone with common sense knows it was a set-up and the hopeful outcome was achieved.
Unfortunately I’m sure this case will fail as all others have. The deep state treasonous crooks, demoncraps and rhino’s know until guns have been removed from the American people, they will not have total control. And that’s all it’s about!

Lock and load my friends, it’s coming

Stag
Stag
12 days ago

The mental gymnastics people will use to defend violation of their rights by the Republicans is mind boggling.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
12 days ago

I’m no lawyer but just using common sense I would think if the original inventor of the bump stock received a patent on his device from the U.S.Patent office then the government gave him the right to make and sell the device thus making it a legal.
Would they allow a device to be made if it was illegal?

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
12 days ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

Where’s the money?

AJChwick
AJChwick
12 days ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

There is no correlation between a PATENT and the ATF rulings. The Patent Office only supplies a reference to a design, an idea, etc.They do not care about Legal or Illegal. that is not their job. But it is ATF’s job to enforce statues.

TStheDeplorable
TStheDeplorable
12 days ago
Reply to  uncle dudley

I could patent a bomb that would destroy the earth as long as I could show that the device was “novel.” That doesn’t mean I can make or possess such a bomb.

USA
USA
13 days ago

DOJ received a formal bitch slap from Judge Starr right out of the gate in the Lane Trump Stock case dissenting that DOJ has no Constitutional Police Power over the states but that won’t stop Barr from breaking the law to continue enforcing un-constitutional rules while the gov panders your support in the up coming election telling you how pro-2A they are. Barr is a big fat tyrant who hates constitutional rights. The swamp. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/26/barr-ruby-ridge/ Lane et al v The United States, Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-01492-X, Brantley Starr United States District Judge “The federal government here raised the talisman of… Read more »

Last edited 13 days ago by USA
Quatermain
Quatermain
13 days ago

Of course this lawsuit is 100% correct, but with Supreme Court itself altering the 1964 civil rights act to include sexual perversions under the clear meaning (at least to any one old enough to understand in 1964) of sex, I do not hold much hope for a court solution.

GUNFUN
GUNFUN
13 days ago
Reply to  Quatermain

How about FOPA for unconstitutional? IF I could do one thing, it would be repealing FOPA.

Random71
Random71
13 days ago
Reply to  GUNFUN

Good start, I personally would go for the NFA chop them at the root, or NICS make it harder for them to keep track.

Last edited 13 days ago by Random71
GUNFUN
GUNFUN
12 days ago
Reply to  Random71

If we get rid of FOPA, we can buy a submachinegun with only a $200 tax stamp. Everybody would be strewing freedom seeds if that happened.