The Bump Stock Court Case Coming Up: Cargill v Garland.

Ammo Flag iStock-856060012
On October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to two promising bump stock cases, one in the Tenth Circuit, and another in the Sixth Circuit. IMG iStock-856060012

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)-– On October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to two promising bump stock cases, one in the Tenth Circuit, another in the Sixth Circuit. The appeals process for those two cases is finished.

Another bump stock case Cargill v. Garland, is in the Fifth Circuit and may tip the balance. It’s being considered en banc and is a well-argued and supported case.

The case was filed on March 25, 2019, originally titled Cargill v. Barr.

In all three cases, the arguments are not about the Second Amendment. They are about the ability of bureaucrats to make law and the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.

In Cargill v. Garland, supported by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the district court decided in favor of the government on November 23, 2020. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and a three-judge panel upheld the district court.

A three-judge panel issued an opinion on the case in the Fifth Circuit on December 14, 2022.

The three judge panel refused to consider either the separation of powers issues, or the Chevron doctrine, claiming they were irrelevant because the panel ruled bump stocks were machine guns.

The Fifth Circuit was asked to consider the case en banc,  which is to say, before the entire court, by a member of the Court. A majority of the members of the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the case, en banc.

The trend of the case follows the GOA case in the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit agreed to hear the bump stock case en banc. The Sixth Circuit split evenly, with eight members voting to rule the bump stock regulation invalid and eight-member voting to rule for the government.  In the case of a tie vote, the district court ruling was upheld. The GOA case was denied a writ of certiorari on October 3 of, 2022.

The Cargill v. Garland oral arguments were heard by the Fifth Circuit, en banc, on September 13, 2022.

There is a good chance the Fifth Circuit will reverse the opinion of the district court. A majority of the Court agreed to hear the case, starting fresh, en banc. If the Fifth Circuit reverses the opinion and finds for Cargill, the case will create a split in the Circuits between the Tenth, the Sixth, and the Fifth circuits.

This gives the Supreme Court a strong incentive to hear the case.

There is an Owellian quality to the circumstances. For over a decade, the ATF assured Americans that “bump stocks” were *not* machineguns. 

About half a million Americans purchased the devices on the assurance they were legal.

To reverse the longstanding interpretation of the law based on presidential preference  smacks of the Orwellian imagery.  In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, history and legal reality were reversed at the whim of the ruling elite.  “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia“, even though they were allies yesterday.

With the bump stock  regulation, we are told:

bump stocks were always machine guns before the law, even though we were told they were not machine guns for over a decade.

How can a citizen make informed decisions if the whim of the executive branch can change the law?

Opinion:

There is the issue of timing. The Supreme Court has made momentous decisions this term, attempting to restore the rule of law to the nation, away from the insanity of the Progressive notion of the Constitution as a “living document”, which can be altered at any time by the judicial branch.

Concurrent is the notion the executive branch can change the law at the whim of unelected bureaucrats.

The justices may not want to tie such a significant change as restoring the separation of powers, as demanded by the Constitution, to a controversial issue such as guns.

Separation of powers cases are percolating through the courts. One of those may be settled at the Supreme Court before the Cargill case.  Hat tip to (Mark W. Smith at the Four Boxes Diner.)

The mass of unconstitutional law in the United States is enormous. The Supreme Court justices are not fools. Declaring half of the federal law unconstitutional all at once, might provoke the left into open revolution.

It is better to proceed incrementally, as the infringements were put into place.


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
32 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ansel Hazen

Declaring half of the federal law unconstitutional all at once, might provoke the left into open revolution.”

Nothing would be better to set this country back on track asap.

USMC0351Grunt

All they would do is report all over the media how their feelings got hurt.

Last edited 1 month ago by USMC0351Grunt
Ed

When will a case challenging the constitutionality of NFA and GCA be heard? Is there anything in the pipeline?

USMC0351Grunt

Possibly be mentioned in these cases or soon afterwards.

Roland T. Gunner

NO! To bloody hell with incrementalism! Mr. Weingarten, fid you bother to proofresd this before you submitted it? It makes my jead hurt ttying to make heads or tails of it. Regardless, its long past time for SCOTUS to stop ducking their duty, and start righting all the unconstitutional wrongs in federal law. Regardless of the plaintiff’s having standing, SCOTUS should be proactively stopping this crap, not waiting for suits to be filed. And they dont want to drive the Left into revolution? LOL! thats friggin’ rich! What are they gonna do? Cry on us? Bleed on us? SCOTUS should… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Actually, that “incrementalism” shtick sounds like something Harold would write.

Neanderthal75

About 95% of the time I can tell just by the title of the article if Harold has written it! I pass on those, having not read an article of his since I can’t remember when! I have no time for Fudds, or outright Benedict Arnold’s, Harold fits into both categories in my personal opinion. Dean Weingarten is no Harold: his argumentation is very sound, and what he writes contextually is real world-based: Harold has no contact with reality. So I suggest we all give Mr Weingarten a break and understand that he is writing within the scope of real… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Oh, yeah, I can usually spot Harokd’s writing by the title, and I usually skip over them. And no, Dean is a great writer, absolutely nothing like Harold. I would never suggest that. But that verbage was a shock to my half awake brain, first thing this morning.

Deg4u

I’m like you, I can tell when a Harold post when I click on it just to see if I’m right. I then close it with reading for a log time. He isss a fund.

USMC0351Grunt

There’s no room for “judicial” and “politics” to be in the same sentence, courtroom, ANY jurisdiction, ANYWHERE in this country.

Ansel Hazen

As my years advance I find my patience for incremental change via the ballot box getting less and less appealing.

Chuck

Ditto! To quote Thomas Paine, “I prefer peace. But if trouble must come. Let it come in my time, so my children will know peace.”

45crittergitter

RT, speaking of proofreading you didn’t do that either in multiple places, and apparently don’t understand law.

Roland T. Gunner

I cannot type that early in AM. But I apologize if my typos offended your tender sensibilities.

Roland T. Gunner

I know the law; I understand the law; but I disagree with the law. As a reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated, thinking man, I am fed up with excuses for not fixing what is broken, and not finding a better way.

Ope

Abolish ATF, rescind NFA!

Jim March

Check your dates. Nothing has happened in December of 2022 yet.

Ansel Hazen

Maybe the Justices will pass on some winning lottery numbers too.

Chuck

The main issue I’ve had is that “Bump Fire” is a technique, and you can’t outlaw a technique. All Bump Stocks really did was facilitate learning the technique, making the learning curve shorter and easier. He’ll, we were Bump Firing our old Remington Nylon 66’s and Marlin 60’s in the early 70’s. Was it fun? You betcha. Was it a waste of ammo? Yep, as it’s not that accurate, though the stock improves accuracy a little. I don’t own a Bump Stock, but I have fired an AR equipped with one a friend owned. Listening to the audio of the… Read more »

Ope

I thought SCOTUS just recently refused to hear two cases involving the illegal banning and unconstitutional criminalization of bump stocks.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ope
Matt in Oklahoma

They did. Dunno if this is a different push for it or what.

Ansel Hazen

In all three cases, the arguments are not about the Second Amendment. They are about the ability of bureaucrats to make law and the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government.”

Looks like it is, and if it wins one might think it could cause all rulings by Fed agency’s to be swept away.

Ope

Ansel, I’m just trying to figure out how and when the ATF/FBI acquired legislative powers. I really don’t understand why SCOTUS can’t make a very quick and easy ruling on this. The RINO’s in DC don’t voice any objections or raise hell about it. SCOTUS needs to do their job!

Last edited 1 month ago by Ope
Ansel Hazen

Nor do I Ope. I expected better from this new group but they appear to lack the needed intestinal fortitude necessary to do their job. Makes me think those who showed up on Jan 6 went to the wrong building.

DDS

You’ve heard the old saying “Lets run it up the flagpole and see who shoots at it.”

Well, they ran it up the flagpole and nobody took a shot at it. They’ve been making things up ever since.

“If I did give you power then you‘ve got nothing. Nobody gives you power. Real power is something you take.” — Jock Ewing

The Constitution is no more than a system of rules. It means a lot to those who obey the rules. It doesn’t mean squat to those who don’t.

Do you really think Lon Horiuchi was playing by the rules?

Ope

DDS, Lon Horiuchi is still living in Hawaii just as free as a bird. That SOB murdered Vicki Weaver in cold ass blood. For the sake of justice and the Weaver family, that POS would be very easy to locate in Hawaii.

Finnky

My understanding was that SCOTUS did not actually deny cert. Forget the exact term, but effectively they tabled the cases for now. Mark Smith did a great analysis at “the four boxes diner” on YouTube. He believes SCOTUS is looking for another case not involving firearms, to which vast majority of population will be sympathetic. Once they rule against excess application of Chevron, they will GVR (Grant, Vacate and Remand) these cases. SCOTUS will be forcing lower courts to make the favorable rulings so that they do not generate so much agitation to “reform scotus” – and so that demos… Read more »

PMinFl

They (SCOTUS) may be waiting for the midterms and resulting re-set of congress before ruling on this case. Any action beforehand might cause an emergency session to pack the court.

Roland T. Gunner

I guess the recent ruling against Chevron was in fact not SCOTUS.

USMC0351Grunt

I wonder what our country would have looked like if the founders fed us The Constitution one Amendment at a time?

I wonder what Normandy or any of the Pacific Islands would have looked like if we sent in one MIC Boat at a time?

I wonder what the Revolution would have looked like if we sent in one rifle at a time?

No, I’m sorry but the freedom and liberty LONG due this country doesn’t come piecemeal. It comes ALL AT ONCE!

Last edited 1 month ago by USMC0351Grunt
Vinnie

“Declaring half of the federal law unconstitutional all at once, might provoke the left into open revolution.”

Good. We know which side is better suited for revolution, and it isn’t them. Maybe some sanity can be restored, but the question is how many need to die before that happens?