[ad_1]
A simple device that increases the rate of fire in semi-automatic rifles is at the center of the case, which could overshadow government agencies’ ability to regulate firearms.
For Michael Cargill, an avid gun rights advocate who sells firearms in Austin, the accessory bump stock was a niche item on the shelves of his store, Central Texas Gun Works, until 2017. It was a great item. It primarily appealed to people who have been injured or disabled, such as veterans who need help firing a gun, and “people who just want to have fun,” he said.
But that year, a high-stakes gambler on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel opened fire on a country music festival, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds more. In his arsenal were 12 of his AR-15 style rifles equipped with this device.
Government officials have called for an immediate ban, sparking alarm among gun store owners like Mr. Cargill, 54, an outgoing Army veteran who says his grandmother’s robbery and assault shaped his views on gun control. caused.
“I’m the only one who said, wait a minute, wait a minute,” Cargill said. Mr. Cargill is challenging the ban, and he is the chief executive of the New Liberals and Civil Rights Alliance, a legal rights advocacy group. Unlawful use of executive power. “It’s insane that anyone would agree to this. This has to stop now.”
The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday whether the Trump administration acted lawfully in enacting the ban that would make it illegal to buy or possess the parts. This is not a case to validate the Second Amendment. Rather, it is one of many challenges aimed at limiting the scope of a government agency, in this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
“During the Trump administration, the ban on bump stocks emerged as a clear example of unlawful executive power,” Philip Hamburger, founder of the New Civil Liberties Union, said in an email. “Overnight, this rule turned 500,000 people into felons. That’s not a power the Constitution gives the executive branch, so it’s litigious.”
In a brief for the court, Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger defended the government, saying reversing the ban “could cause significant harm to public safety.”
“A bump stock is a machine gun because it allows the shooter to fire ‘multiple shots automatically with a single trigger function,'” Preloger wrote.
The case hinges on whether bump stocks transform semi-automatic rifles into machine guns.
The device hooks onto the rifle’s stock, the part of the gun that rests on the shoulder, and uses energy from the gun’s kickback to move the stock back and forth, allowing the weapon to fire.
The agency enacted the ban in 2018, clarifying its interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which criminalizes the manufacture or possession of machine guns, and saying it also applies to bump stocks. Under federal law, a machine gun is “any weapon that fires, or is designed to fire, or that can be easily converted to fire multiple shots automatically by a single function of the trigger without manual reloading.” is defined as.
At issue is whether the ATF has crossed the threshold of enacting a ban without Congressional action. A ruling against the agency could undermine the agency’s authority to regulate firearms and accessories.
The day before the ban went into effect, Cargill wandered into the ATF office in Austin, handed over two bump stocks and announced the lawsuit.
Cargill said he wants gun owners to be extremely careful, even though the case is not focused on the Second Amendment.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-gun or anti-gun,” he says. “You can’t do this at an agency.”
Mark Chenoweth, president of the New Civil Liberties Union, said the case is consistent with other legal challenges by the group.
“The ATF completely misunderstands the current law to arrive at this outlandish result,” Chenoweth said in an email. ” he said.
Chenoweth declined to name the group’s donors, but said the organization receives support from a “wide range of donors.”
“NCLA is completely independent and is not part of any other organization, umbrella organization, or donor organization,” Chenoweth wrote.
The group has received at least $1 million from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation, according to federal tax documents. Mr. Chenoweth previously served as legal reform counsel for Koch Industries.
The lead attorney in the case was Jonathan F. Mitchell, best known for authoring the anti-abortion law that ultimately led the Supreme Court to abolish the constitutional right to surgical abortions. Mitchell, who declined to comment, recently advocated on behalf of former President Donald J. Trump to challenge the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to exclude him from the state’s primary ballot.
The deadly potential of bump stocks, which retailed for less than $200 when they first hit the market in 2010, became surprising in October 2017.
That same month, Stephen Paddock, 64, fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in about 11 minutes, targeting thousands of concertgoers. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Investigators found about a dozen rifles modified with bump stocks in the hotel suite.
The next day, Mr. Cargill’s store was sold out of bump stocks.
“When something happens, like a mass shooting, and people think the government is going to ban a certain part, they want to buy that part,” Cargill said.
An unusual coalition has emerged to support banning bump stocks, but there were early signs that the politically polarizing move could be fraught with difficulties.
Lawmakers, including several leading Republicans, have expressed openness to banning the devices. The National Rifle Association also supported stricter regulations.
Partly due to growing political pressure, Trump, a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment, vowed to enact a ban.
In response, the Justice Department has promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but ATF officials have privately said that a ban would likely require Congressional action, and bipartisan action has often stalled. It was suggested that
The ATF’s decision to ban the device represented a change in direction and raised questions about the scope of the ATF’s authority to regulate accessories.
Cargill was also furious about the ban, saying it opens the door to stricter gun control.
“If you give ATF an inch, ATF will take a mile,” Cargill said. “I was shocked that no one was trying to fight. I said we have to do something. We can’t just go into people’s homes and take away things they bought legally. You can’t take it out.”
Federal courts have disputed the legality of the ban and issued conflicting decisions. This disagreement raises the possibility that the Supreme Court will weigh in.
After a federal judge in Texas sided with the government in Cargill’s case, the case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ultimately, the en banc court, split along ideological lines, agreed with Cargill by a vote of 13-3.
“A simple reading of the statutory language, with close consideration of the mechanics of semi-automatic firearms, reveals that bump stocks are excluded from the technical definition of ‘machine gun’ as set out in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. ” wrote Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod.
He cited concerns that “bump stocks are contributing to gun deaths,” adding, “It’s not our job to decide public policy for the country.”
The three dissenting justices, all Democratic appointees, argued that the majority’s arguments “legitimize the means of mass murder.”
[ad_2]
Source link
