Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Bump Stock Cases

Slidefire Solutions Bump Fire Stock Assembled
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Bump Stock Cases

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On October 3, 2022, it was revealed the Supreme Court refused to review two cases challenging the rule implementing a bump stock ban put in place by the ATF at the request of President Donald Trump.

The two cases which had been appealed to the Supreme Court were distributed for conference where decisions are made to hear the case (grant a writ of certiorari) or not on September 12. Both had been rescheduled earlier in the year. Both cases were denied as of October 3, 2022.

The appeals process for the bump stock ban has ended.

The two cases were: Aposhian v. Garland and Gun Owners of America v. Garland.

The Aposhian case was in the Tenth Circuit.  The GOA case was in the Sixth Circuit.

Both cases had gone through three-judge panels at the appeals courts. The Aposhian case had lost at both. The GOA case won at the three-judge panel but was tied at the en banc panel. The GOA case then reverted to the District court decision, where the ATF had prevailed.

Both cases challenged the power of the ATF to unilaterally change federal law regarding the definition of what a machine gun is. Another part of the challenge was whether an agency could refuse to rely on the Chevron decision. The Chevron decision involved a case about whether the courts should defer to the administrative “expertise” of an agency to make decisions independent of Congressional votes.

The ATF claimed they were simply interpreting the law, as the statute allowed them to do.  That interpretation means an agency can reverse long-standing precedent of law simply because an executive asks them to do so or they decide to do so.

This destroys the idea of the rule of law. How can a citizen, or anyone who is subject to American law, know whether their property will be safe when an agency can reverse a previously longstanding rule and declare their property contraband without any congressional vote?

How can this be considered a representative republic?

The Supreme Court refusing to hear a case does not mean the court endorses the existing law. It means they refused to hear the case, or perhaps more specifically, it means less than four Supreme Court justices voted to hear the case.

Opinion:

As someone following these cases, it appeared there was a good chance the Supreme Court would hear them.

A good chance is not a certainty. The Supreme Court has now, officially, refused to hear them. There is no more appeal.

It is a bit hard to take, after a tie at the en banc hearing for the Sixth circuit. If GOA had won that vote, it would be a clear and obvious circuit split, and the court would have been much more likely to take the case.

There are many more Second Amendment related cases are coming up in the near future.  Some of those will involve the “final rule” of the ATF. Most of them will be citing the Bruen decision. The bump stock cases did not cite Bruen, as I recall. They were about regulatory overreach on the part of the ATF and the Trump administration.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
28 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ope

How the hell could SCOTUS not hear cases involving something this important ? By refusing to hear these illegal and unconstitutional bump stock infringements , is the court agreeing that the ATF can arbitrarily make law? This is absolutely insane and disgusting.

Watch um

Dean, if the court would and with any Common sense it would take about 2 minutes to rule that the ATF rule was unconstitutional, but what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers who don’t really care what the meaning of “shall not be infringed” means.

CourageousLion

One other issue was the fact that neither of the petitioners had suffered a damage under the rule. If you look at cases the SC take, there is ALWAYS a damaged party involved. GOA isn’t damaged and neither was the other party that sued. IF someone is ARRESTED and TRIED they will be suffering a damage and would have a route to the SC for hearing.

musicman44mag

Maybe the supreme court is passing on this one because if they challenge obidens rule over government using the ATF to enforce rule changes that change the law they will feel like they will give the demonratts fodder for their changing the amount justices. We could loose demonrat votes. On the other hand if we kick but and have both house and senate maybe congress can challenge it but I doubt it as they are almost all corrupt. Just a thought.

JayWPB

Actually, it’s quite simple. Machine Guns are illegal. A Bump Stocks is INTENDED to make a rifle operate like a machine gun. Same thing with an FRT. It’s the INTENTION that makes these items illegal. Now, SCOTUS needs to take a step back and affirm that the 2nd Amendment INTENDED to keep the government from preventing us from defending ourselves.

DDS

“Machine guns are” NOT “illegal.”

There!

Fixed it for ya!

Orion

restricted, yes, but legal in many states…. even today.

Wild Bill

So what the statute says is not important to you?

Boz

SCROTUS strikes again.

Montana454Casull

I never owned one , all those confiscated bump stocks need melted down and remolded as 24 inch dildoes and they need to be rammed up every member of the ATFs and Donald Trumps ass for making a piece of plastic illegal . Infringing laws should have consequences.

Watch um

I like your way of thinking, I guess my pistol brace will be next. Something I paid hard earned money for

USMC0351Grunt

Looking over the past track records of 2A cases and the SCOTUS I have a feeling this / these issues will be included somewhere down the road in combination with other issues that are brewing..

Bill

I believe that both these decisions were rendered before the Supreme Court decision re WV vs EPA. Which ruled that federal entities can only enforce the law not re-write it. I suspect there is more to be watched in the future regarding bumpstocks!
BTW, I am not a lawyer; but i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!

musicman44mag

LOL, thanks.

TStheDeplorable

Thank you, Dean, for noting that “the Supreme Court refusing to hear a case does not mean the court endorses the existing law.” So many people misunderstand denials of writs of certiorari. The reality is that the Supreme Court grants certiorari (agreeing to consider an appeal) in less than 2% of cases where it is requested, because they are unable to process more appeals than that. It is a mammoth undertaking to process and consider and decide a matter of final law. The Supreme Court is the last stop, so they must do all they can to get it right.… Read more »

Chuck

At the very least, they should have kicked them back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the West Virginia v EPA Decision SCOTUS recently ruled on.

Watch um

Now that piss me off, and the one of the few things I hold against Trump, but what can you expect from a loud mouth yankee from NY.
Okay all you folks who live above the Mason Dixie line who love all things guns please forgive me for being a Southerner

Lesko Brandon

There was a well thought out analysis of this by a YouTuber: Four Boxes Diner. He pointed out that the case had been re-calendared 20 times which is probably a record in court cases. There seems to be a longer-term strategy in play to limit the power of not just the BATFE, but all Fed agencies. It could work out long-term even though this one sucks. Here is the link.

musicman44mag

Ok, rich people. I thought of a comment made on another article about American ingenuity and came up with an idea. All you out there that have the connection and the bucks get your example ready for patent and hit up your attorney. You have a legal 223 pistol. The kind that just has a buffer tube sticking out the back. Take a wide piece of Velcro that can strap around your forearm, Sew a loop onto it just big enough to shove the buffer tube into about four inches long. There you have it. Your new gun brace that… Read more »

grant

The Bump Stock,
Another Stupid Toy that is causing more problems than it’s worth.
However, I do agree 100% that it’s NOT illegal.

Watch um

With your statement, I would guess you would say the same about a dildo for the ladies and men who like something stuck up their rear end

Stag

Butters and Fudds are cancer.

Orion

unlike you, trump learned .

Wild Bill

You can cut your typing in half by leaving out insults.

Stag

If he learned he wouldn’t have signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 which included arms control, he wouldn’t have order the DoJ to do something about bumpstocks, and he wouldn’t have tweeted about banning silencers and body armor while supporting the TAPS Act.

CourageousLion

They didn’t “refuse” to hear the cases. They re-calendared the cases AGAIN. They have done it 20 times with these cases. They have a strategy in the works to destroy Chevron deference once and for all. I think that Mark Smith may be correct… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3XR2D5ZKFY

nrringlee

Th process can be frustrating but we have been through this many times before. Justices are looking for broader scope cases to address the issues of administrative law and the seemingly unlimited power of the administrative state to create law from the vapors. Anyone who has been involved in wildlife conservation issues knows this and yes, it is frustrating but eventually they will decide on a case and take it. Keep pushing.