Sixth Circuits Grants DOJ En Banc Rehearing In GOA’s Bump Stock Case

MAC-10 Registered SMG
This transferrable MAC-10 is a real, fully automatic machinegun, but the ATF classified bump stocks as legally the same thing. IMG Jim Grant

CINCINNATI, OH-(Ammoland.com)- The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted an en banc rehearing of Gun Owners of America VS. Garland.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) backed lawsuit deals with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) banning bump stocks through changing the definition of a machine gun. Most bump stock cases primarily focus on the Second Amendment issue. This case’s primary focus is the ATF’s use of Chevron Difference to create new laws through regulation instead of going through Congress. The courts seem keener on tackling Chevron Deference than taking on Second Amendment issues.

Chevron Deference dates to 1984. In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, the United States Supreme Court set a legal test to determine whether to grant deference to a government agency’s interpretation of a statute. The test consists of two parts. The first is “whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The second is that Congress has not dealt with the exact issue in question.

GOA’s counsel argues Chevron Deference can be applied only to administrative law. They further state that since the definition of a machine gun is criminal law, that distinction means that the ATF cannot use Chevron Deference to redefine a machine to include bump stocks. A three-judge panel agreed with GOA’s reasoning and ordered the district court to enact an injunction against the ATF’s arbitrary ban of the item.

Because the court granted the Department of Justice (DOJ) an en banc rehearing of the case, the panel’s decision is vacated, which means the District Court will not issue an injunction against the bump stock ban until the full bench hears arguments from both GOA’s lawyers and the Government lawyers. For all intents and purposes, it is like the three-judge panel’s decision never happened.

The decision to grant an en banc rehearing was not a total surprise, with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the government in Aposhian v. Barr. That case was another case dealing with the bump stock ban. A three-judge panel ruled the ATF had the right to apply Chevron Deference to the definition of a machine gun. Counsel for Aposhian asked for an en banc review, but by a vote of 6-5, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs an en banc rehearing.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) doubled down on their commitment to fighting back against the ATF using rulemaking to ban certain items. GOF is GOA’s legal non-profit. The two groups also plan to fight back against the ATF’s attempts to restrict the sale of unfinished frames and receivers and the changing of the classification of pistol stabilizing devices. The ATF is trying to use rulemaking to push a de facto ban on items that Joe Biden does not like.

“Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a brilliantly written opinion on bump stocks,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told AmmoLand News. “But the fight is not over. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are committed to combating the lawless ATF at every turn in GOA v. Garland. And as the battle continues, GOA will continue to champion the common-sense decision from the appellate panel that a bump stock is not a machine gun.”

The court has not set a new date for oral arguments but did ask both parties to file briefs as soon as possible.


About John Crump

En Banc GOA v. Garland by John Crump on Scribd

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill
Bill
5 months ago

Way to go GOA! That ruling was atrocious!

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
5 months ago

The ATF makes everything simple…the ONLY way that a bump stock can be considered a machine gun is if the people ruling on it are mentally challenged IDIOTS.

ATF-confusion-b.png
Last edited 5 months ago by CourageousLion
Quatermain
Quatermain
5 months ago

Right, the corrupt, bought, blackmailed courts will fix this when confronted with legal facts. And then pigs will fly…

HLB
HLB
5 months ago

But the fight is not over”…
Ok. So we are looking forward to the day when we can exercise all of our rights, because for the fight to be over, we must win? Or do we call a truce whenever we manage to find a loop hole in the system that lets us hold a toy gun for a moment on Christmas day?

HLB

The other Jim
The other Jim
5 months ago

Yes, very nice paint.
Black Lives Matter Inc., Black Lives Matter Terrorists, Antifa LLC, Antifa Terrorists, Colin Kaepernick, ESPN, NFL, NFL Players Inc., National Football League Properties Inc., NFL International LLC, Macy Gray (singer who wants American Flag cancelled), Mara Gay (New York Times executive deeply offended that people on Long Island had American Flags on their pickup trucks stating it means they are too white), US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (who sas she is much better off living in a camp in Kenya then the United States), Hatemonger Al Pacino, etc., must be furious at that beautiful paint job.

Tionico
Tionico
5 months ago
Reply to  The other Jim

We uns would all be far better off if that Omar thing were living in a camp in Kenya.

Can we take up a collection for her one way plane ticket?

Oh, and make sure that camp is at least fifty miles from the nearest cell tower.

The other Jim
The other Jim
5 months ago
Reply to  Tionico

Where she came from, if she wore that Hijab Head Wrap along with all that Make-up they would behead her.

APG member
APG member
5 months ago
Jaque
Jaque
5 months ago

I just bought a AR Pistol for a truck gun. They are still being sold. Should the Communist Biden regime win and reclassify these guns as SBR’s and I have to either destroy it or register it as a SBR, I will register it thru a trust. Even with the $200 punitive tax, I will have saved several hundred dollars over buying an SBR up front. And those dollars are going for a suppressor.

So get em while you still can.

And dont forget to get your comments into the ATF now.

https://www.gunowners.org/na05252021/

Bozz
Bozz
5 months ago
Reply to  Jaque

The proposed new ruling on pistol braces does not make AR pistols illegal or require them to be SBRed. Braces will not be illegal either. It’s when you put the two together that somehow will magically transform them into an illegal firearm.

Tionico
Tionico
5 months ago
Reply to  Bozz

a constructive paper “crime”, then, right?

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
5 months ago
Reply to  Jaque

I can’t get my comments into the ATF. It would be called “terroristic threatening” a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
5 months ago
Reply to  CourageousLion

Ya, something as simple as keep your hands off my guns would make you a terrorist in obidens eye.

Arizona
Arizona
5 months ago

This is critical the judges do the right thing and rule against the ATF, as it is the right decision, and it will nullify all the current antics of the f squad on braces, redefining receiver, suppressor, rifle, readily converted, etc.

CourageousLion
CourageousLion
5 months ago
Reply to  Arizona

The right thing is to get rid of ALL victimless “gun” laws on the books EVERYWHERE! PERIOD. No victim, no crime. End of story.

Mack
Mack
5 months ago

Chevron Deference does not apply here. Instead, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 325-28 (2014). “Agencies are not free to edit statutes at will. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in 2014, “[a]n agency has no power to ‘tailor’ legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms … to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate. … [The agency’s] need to rewrite [the statute] should have alerted [it] that it had taken a wrong interpretive turn.” Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 325-28 (2014). See also Christensen v. Harris… Read more »