10th circuit vacates "bump stock ban" and grants en banc hearing

[VanceMack]

I am not going to argue if it's 50 feet. My point is that the local DA and later the jury will nail you if they deem the distance too far to claim a deadly threat.

An AR-15 rifle for home defense is a total joke because it's too loud and too long. An AR-15 pistol is another matter, especially with a laser and light.

Ummm...dood...what do you think law enforcement and the military use to clear buildings?

 

[VanceMack]

What are they? I mean the practical reasons to own an AR-15 rifle. Please don't mention making holes in a sheet of paper. I am only interested in the purpose for which all guns are made - to kill people or animals.

To kill animals and shoot people. Also to punch holes in targets for fun, to engage in competitions. For home defense (you really should know more about that you are talking about before you make your claims. There are MANY instances of ARs being used for home defense). For defense of community, country, and Constitution. Lots of hunters use ARs. Its a weapon of choice for hog hunters but is regularly used to take deer and other big game.

Lots of reasons.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.

I guess I'll have to worry about it if I ever own a home with a room greater than 50ft across. Until then, it just seems like your highlighting rich-people-problems.

 

[VanceMack]

Why would anyone want one?

Jerry Miculek is one of if not THE best gunmen on the planet. I dont know if thats a fair competition.



I'm not a fan of bump stocks...but I'm far less a fan of frivolous gun bans.

 

[Wayne Jr]

What are they? I mean the practical reasons to own an AR-15 rifle. Please don't mention making holes in a sheet of paper. I am only interested in the purpose for which all guns are made - to kill people or animals.

If guns are made to kill people then why haven't my boys or I been shot, or have shot someone by now, what with all the rounds we put through our rifles? I guess our ARs are defective?

I bought and use my AR for 4-legged critter control, which necessary every year. Coyotes are vermin. And yes, since we're on the topic, I need the 30rnd mag for killing Coyotes as well, less time loading a mag is more time taking down a critter before it kills more cattle, gets in your back yard, or hurts someone.

 

[VanceMack]

Indeed. One look at what is going on in some cities in the country is a good answer in itself.

A lot of people see the things currently happening and say things like "20 years ago, I would have never imagined........"

Not me. I always imagined this and a lot worse.

There's an old line from a movie but we used to use it long before that movie came out..."you aint seen bad yet. But its comin'."

 

[CLAX1911]

I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.

You could effectively shoot something with a rifle even if it's a few inches in front of the barrel. But if you're using it as an excuse to get an AR-15 pistol I understand those are cool too.

 

[joko104]

You could effectively shoot something with a rifle even if it's a few inches in front of the barrel. But if you're using it as an excuse to get an AR-15 pistol I understand those are cool too.

AR 15 pistols of limited value, depending how short the pistol barrel is. For high ammo dependent on extreme velocity to be effective - such as the little .223/5.56 - reducing barrel length increasingly reduces velocity.

A 5 inch barrel for an AR 15 is 1800 fps. A 20 inch barrel is 2950 fps. There is no reason to go over 20 inches.



The little .223/5.56 is very dependent on velocity for lethality. 2500 fps is considered the minimum for a "lethal wound channel" by military standards. In short, 10 inches it the minimum to reach that threshold.

There are also increasing reliability issues, flash and report volume issues, and barrel rise issues with extremely short barrels.

ALSO... NEVER convert an AR 15 rifle to pistol length. It is a MAJOR federal felony. If you WANT an AR15 pistol, build it yourself from a new lower - making certain it is NOT reported as for a rifle if you don't buy the lower in a private sale. That way, you can put any upper (barrel) on it of any length. A "pistol" AR15 may be converted to a rifle, but not visa versa. DO NOT trust the store selling the AR15 pistol isn't selling you one that the feds were told it is a rifle.

 

[Novichok]

To kill animals and shoot people. Also to punch holes in targets for fun, to engage in competitions. For home defense (you really should know more about that you are talking about before you make your claims. There are MANY instances of ARs being used for home defense). For defense of community, country, and Constitution. Lots of hunters use ARs. Its a weapon of choice for hog hunters but is regularly used to take deer and other big game.

Lots of reasons.

You mentioned many, if not all. Since I don't hunt, there is only one reason I own three guns now: to never beg for my life at home. That's it. All else is bull****.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How ****in sad... sick

Yes, the judicial branch constraining the executive to acting within the bounds of the clear letter of the law is so sick.

I thought courts holding Trump's illegal actions in abeyance was supposed to be a good thing.

 

[Wayne Jr]

AR 15 pistols of limited value, depending how short the pistol barrel is. For high ammo dependent on extreme velocity to be effective - such as the little .223/5.56 - reducing barrel length increasingly reduces velocity.

A 5 inch barrel for an AR 15 is 1800 fps. A 20 inch barrel is 2950 fps. There is no reason to go over 20 inches.

View attachment 67295117

The little .223/5.56 is very dependent on velocity for lethality. 2500 fps is considered the minimum for a "lethal wound channel" by military standards. In short, 10 inches it the minimum to reach that threshold.

There are also increasing reliability issues, flash and report volume issues, and barrel rise issues with extremely short barrels.

ALSO... NEVER convert an AR 15 rifle to pistol length. It is a MAJOR federal felony. If you WANT an AR15 pistol, build it yourself from a new lower - making certain it is NOT reported as for a rifle if you don't buy the lower in a private sale. That way, you can put any upper (barrel) on it of any length. A "pistol" AR15 may be converted to a rifle, but not visa versa. DO NOT trust the store selling the AR15 pistol isn't selling you one that the feds were told it is a rifle.

That's why most sub-10.5in AR pistol builds are in 300blackout

 

[Wayne Jr]

Why would anyone want an AR-15 rifle? That was a good question the AR-15 guys have no good answer.

Kyle Rittenhouse had 3 good answers on August 28th

 

[VanceMack]

You mentioned many, if not all. Since I don't hunt, there is only one reason I own three guns now: to never beg for my life at home. That's it. All else is bull****.

You don't come across as very thoughtful re gun ownership. I'm glad you have 'your' reasons.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Who says there are no good answers as to why we own ARs?

To people who think there is no good reason to own an AR, any reason proffered will fail to meet their standard.

 

[Glitch]

another top poster on gun issues made me aware of this ruling and I just finished reading what I could. The "Chevron" standard has been a topic of heated discussion over the last 10 years and SC nominees are often asked about their views concerning ""Chevron" deference

this could send the idiotic ban before the supreme court


NCLA Earns En Banc Review from 10th Circuit in Bump Stock Ban Case, Including on Chevron Issues


NCLA released the following statements:
“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision. Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach.”
— Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“NCLA is grateful that the Tenth Circuit has recognized the importance of our client’s civil liberties at stake in this case. We are also delighted that the judges have decided to take a close look at several key Chevron-related issues that have surfaced. The bump stock ban illustrates some of the many problems with Chevron deference—including constitutional ones.”
— Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, NCLA

An interesting development. I've read Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and I don't understand how it can apply. The decision to ban bump stocks was made via Executive Order, not from legislation. I can understand why the BATFE would ban bump stocks, and by extension prohibit all FFL holders from selling them. But Executive Orders only apply to the Executive Branch. They do not extend to the States or individuals, and they are not law. Meaning, if someone who did not hold an FFL wanted to sell me a bump stock, I could legally buy one because they are not lawfully banned.

The Chevron deference only applies to ambiguous or not well defined laws, where the agency responsible for creating the regulations must make their own interpretations of the intent of the law. Therefore, in order for the Chevron deference to apply the BATFE must use an existing ambiguous law where it could be reasonably implied that Congress intended to ban bump stocks, but didn't say so specifically. I have found no cases where the Chevron deference was applied to an Executive Order.

 

[Glitch]

it was pandering to loud mouths in the public and press. Trump figured he had to do something and this was what he figured he could do with out really pissing off his pro gun supporters. I suspect he was hoping the courts would strike it down so he could claim he did something and not get harmed by pro gun voters retaliating

Anyone who knows Trump knows that he is vehemently anti-Second Amendment, despite his rhetoric to the contrary. He is so anti-Second Amendment he is more than willing to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish that goal.

President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process | CNBC - YouTube

His Executive Order to ban bump stocks was also a violation of the Second Amendment, but since it has absolutely no force of law it really doesn't matter. It can only be applied to FFL holders.

 

[joko104]

Anyone who knows Trump knows that he is vehemently anti-Second Amendment, despite his rhetoric to the contrary. He is so anti-Second Amendment he is more than willing to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish that goal.

President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process | CNBC - YouTube

His Executive Order to ban bump stocks was also a violation of the Second Amendment, but since it has absolutely no force of law it really doesn't matter. It can only be applied to FFL holders.

While factually you are right, if you think there is no difference between Trump and Biden on 2A you're a fool.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How does the 10th Circuit ruling effect President Trumps ban on bump stocks and the Supreme Court declining to take up the challenge case?

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, leaving the prohibition on the devices in place."

Supreme Court leaves Trump bump stock ban in place - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump administration's bump stock ban - CBS News

All this does is reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what the USSC was deciding when it issued that opinion. All it was doing was deciding not to grant a preliminary injunction on the bump-fire stock ban. The opinion did not decide the ban was legal. Nor did it decline to take up the challenge to the ban, simply because that was never the issue before it.

 

[Glitch]

Why would anyone want an AR-15 rifle?

That was a good question the AR-15 guys have no good answer. The same applies to the concealed carry license. I have one and have no intention of carrying. There are better ways to avoid being harmed.

I bought an AR-12 in 2018 to replace my 30-year old Mossberg Model 500. The Mossberg was a fine firearm, and I took it everywhere, but after 30 years of use and abuse it was beginning to fall apart. Rather than spending money to repair and refurbish the firearm, I chose an improvement instead, an AR-12.



With the AR-12 I don't have a wooden stock to take care of, like I did with the Mossberg. The AR-12 is lighter to carry than the Mossberg, and much easier and faster to reload.

My AR-12 and my Ruger .44 mag go with me on every fishing trip I take, and whenever I am foraging during this time of year. Since June I have already had three non-aggressive brown bear encounters. I have had lots of brown bear encounters in the past, but never so many in such a short period of time. I believe it is the result of COVID-19, and the lack of the 2+ million tourists that normally show up during our Summer months. Fewer people means the bears are more visible. There were also more salmon available in the rivers this year, which may have contributed to more bears showing up.

I do try my best to pay attention to my surroundings. The last thing I want to do is surprise a brown bear. In the 29 Summers I have spent in Alaska, and all the bear encounters I have had, I have never once felt that my life was in danger. Even when the bear was less than 20 feet away. It was focusing on the salmon I had caught, and not paying any attention to me.

I really like bears, and I would prefer not to shoot one. However, I will continue to carry firearms capable of stopping either moose or bear. As they say, "it is always better to have firearms and not need them, than to need firearms and not have them."

 

[Glitch]

Watch the video closely and you see the worthlessness and counter productive nature of a bump stock.

1. There was a jam
2. The barrel rise would cause all but the first round to go well over the top of the target.

Bump stocks are a gimmick, nothing else. Even the Marines recognized the counter productive nature of full auto - and a bump stock is FAR worse than full auto.

As someone who was trained by the Marine Corps with the M60E1, you are absolutely right. Machine guns are weapons of suppression, not weapons of accuracy. Even with full auto we were taught anything after the third round fired was a wasted shot. When the M16A1 was originally released it had full auto capability, but within just a couple of years they realized that they were wasting lots of ammo. So the M16A2, and all subsequent variations of the M16, include a three round burst instead of full auto capability.

Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower Shooter from 1966 was trained to shoot by the Marine Corps, and used only semi-auto rifles, a shotgun, and three handguns from a much greater distance than the Las Vegas shooter. He managed to kill 14 and wound 31 in 96 minutes before he was killed.

 

[CLAX1911]

AR 15 pistols of limited value, depending how short the pistol barrel is. For high ammo dependent on extreme velocity to be effective - such as the little .223/5.56 - reducing barrel length increasingly reduces velocity.

A 5 inch barrel for an AR 15 is 1800 fps. A 20 inch barrel is 2950 fps. There is no reason to go over 20 inches.

View attachment 67295117

The little .223/5.56 is very dependent on velocity for lethality. 2500 fps is considered the minimum for a "lethal wound channel" by military standards. In short, 10 inches it the minimum to reach that threshold.

There are also increasing reliability issues, flash and report volume issues, and barrel rise issues with extremely short barrels.

ALSO... NEVER convert an AR 15 rifle to pistol length. It is a MAJOR federal felony. If you WANT an AR15 pistol, build it yourself from a new lower - making certain it is NOT reported as for a rifle if you don't buy the lower in a private sale. That way, you can put any upper (barrel) on it of any length. A "pistol" AR15 may be converted to a rifle, but not visa versa. DO NOT trust the store selling the AR15 pistol isn't selling you one that the feds were told it is a rifle.

There are production model AR-15 pistols.

 

[Glitch]

While factually you are right, if you think there is no difference between Trump and Biden on 2A you're a fool.

There is certainly a difference. Trump has formed his own unconstitutional opinions, while Biden gets told what his opinions will be.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

An interesting development. I've read Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and I don't understand how it can apply.

It doesn't, but not for the reasons you describe.

The decision to ban bump stocks was made via Executive Order, not from legislation.

This is only half true. Though you are correct the change was not made legislatively, it was also not made simply by executive order. The change was promulgated via the ordinary rulemaking procedure used by federal agencies, in this case the ATF (through the Department of Justice), for decades. You can read everything, from the proposed rule, to the notice and comment responses here.

I can understand why the BATFE would ban bump stocks, and by extension prohibit all FFL holders from selling them. But Executive Orders only apply to the Executive Branch. They do not extend to the States or individuals, and they are not law. Meaning, if someone who did not hold an FFL wanted to sell me a bump stock, I could legally buy one because they are not lawfully banned.

Assuming you would extend your protest about executive orders (again, which this was not) to ATF rulemaking (which this was), let me assure you that federal rules issued by federal agencies pursuant to authorities established by federal legislation absolutely do apply in each and every one of the fifty states and to each and every individual therein, and they do carry with them the full force of law.

The Chevron deference only applies to ambiguous or not well defined laws, where the agency responsible for creating the regulations must make their own interpretations of the intent of the law. Therefore, in order for the Chevron deference to apply the BATFE must use an existing ambiguous law where it could be reasonably implied that Congress intended to ban bump stocks, but didn't say so specifically. I have found no cases where the Chevron deference was applied to an Executive Order.

Because this was ordinary rulemaking and not an executive order, such a distinction is not relevant here. However, the statutory text that regulates certain devices as machineguns is not ambiguous or unclear. Congress clearly defined a machinegun as a device that is capable of firing more than one round with a single activation of the trigger. Because a bump-fire stock simply enables faster activation of the trigger and has no effect on the internal workings of the gun (including how many times it is fired with a single activation of the trigger), the new rule that prohibits them on the basis that they are a machinegun is irreconcilable with the statute. Therefore, although the Chevron standard must be applied to the agency's rule, the rule fails the standard because the statute is not ambiguous as to what qualifies as a machinegun.

 

[RetiredUSN]

This guy used a bump stock to kill 58 people and wound over a hundred. Stephen Craig Paddock, 64


He was upset about some gambling loses apparently.

He was firing into a huge mass of people all tightly congregated.

Ray Charles couldn't miss.

 

[dave8383]

I'm not a fan of bump stocks...but I'm far less a fan of frivolous gun bans.

A bump stock is not a gun.