A US appeals court has ruled against banning rapid-fire devices for semi-automatic weapons

0
22

Video file above: Bump-stock ban goes into effect. The Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks — devices that allow a shooter to rapidly fire multiple shots from a semiautomatic weapon after the first pull of the trigger — was overturned Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. The ban came after a 2017 Las- In Vegas, a sniper who used a gun killed dozens of people. Gun rights advocates have challenged this in numerous courts. The 13-3 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is a firearms issue that is not about the Second Amendment, but about the interpretation of federal laws. Opponents of the ban argued that machine guns do not fall under the federal law’s definition of illegal machine guns. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it does, and the Biden administration is now defending that position. The ban has survived challenges in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; 10th District in Denver; and a federal district court in Washington. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit also ruled in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court ruling by a federal judge in Texas. But the full court in New Orleans voted to review the case. Arguments were heard on September 13. Bump stocks use the recoil energy of a semi-automatic firearm to cause the trigger to “reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” according to the ATF. According to court records, the shooter must continuously press the weapon with the non-firing hand and continuously press the trigger with the trigger finger. A full appeals court on Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They argued that the trigger itself fires multiple times when the stock is used, so a stock-loaded weapon is not considered a machine gun under federal law. They point to language in the law that defines a machine gun as a machine gun that fires multiple times with “a single trigger function,” indicating that the example is excluded from the technical definition of “machine gun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. ,” wrote Justice Jennifer Walker Elrod in the majority opinion. Most majorities also agreed that when a law is ambiguous, Congress must resolve the issue under a judicial doctrine known as “leniency.” Dissenting, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks did not fall within the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the leniency principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that the statute clearly criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote. Eichard Samp, who opposed the rule on behalf of a gun owner in Texas, said he was pleased with Friday’s decision and expected it after arguments in September. A lawyer representing the government did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment Friday night. The judges who ruled against the ban were Elrod, Priscilla Richman, Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, Carl Stewart, Leslie Southwick, Katharina Haynes, Dawn Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Corey Wilson and Andrew Oldham. All but Stewart are Republican appointees to the appeals court. Justices James Dennis and James Graves joined in Higginson’s dissent. The case was heard before Judge Dana Douglas, a recent appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, joined the 5th Circuit.

Video File Above: Ban on Bump Stocks Takes Effect

A federal appeals court in New Orleans on Friday overturned the Trump administration’s ban on bump stops, devices that allow a shooter to quickly fire multiple rounds from a semiautomatic weapon after the first pull of the trigger.

The ban came after dozens of people were killed by a gun-wielding sniper in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in numerous courts. The 13-3 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.

This is a firearms issue that is not about the Second Amendment, but about the interpretation of federal laws. Opponents of the ban argued that machine guns do not fall under the federal law’s definition of illegal machine guns. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they are, a position now defended by the Biden administration.

The ban has survived challenges in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati; 10th District in Denver; and a federal district court in Washington. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit also ruled in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court ruling by a federal judge in Texas. But the full court in New Orleans voted to review the case. Arguments were heard on September 13.

Bump stocks use the recoil energy of a semi-automatic firearm to cause the trigger to “reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” according to the ATF. According to court records, the shooter must maintain constant forward pressure on the weapon with the non-firing hand and constant pressure on the trigger with the trigger finger.

The full Court of Appeals on Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They argued that the trigger itself fires multiple times when the stock is used, so a stock-loaded weapon is not considered a machine gun under federal law. They point to wording in the law that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times from “a single trigger operation.”

“A plain reading of the statutory language, combined with a close examination of the mechanics of semi-automatic firearms, shows that the example is excluded from the technical definition of “machine gun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the main majority opinion.

Most of the majorities also agreed that when the law is ambiguous, Congress must resolve the issue under a judicial doctrine known as “deference.”

Dissenting, Justice Stephen Higginson disagreed that machine guns do not fall within the federal definition of assault rifles. And he wrote that the majority interprets the principle of leniency too broadly. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that the statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.

Richard Samp, who opposed the rule on behalf of a gun owner in Texas, said he was pleased with Friday’s decision and expected it after arguments in September.

An attorney representing the government did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment Friday night.

The judges who ruled against the ban were Elrod, Priscilla Richman, Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, Carl Stewart, Leslie Southwick, Katharina Haynes, Dawn Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Corey Wilson and Andrew Oldham. All but Stewart are Republican appointees to the appeals court.

Justices James Dennis and James Graves joined in Higginson’s dissent. The case was heard before Judge Dana Douglas, a recent appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, joined the 5th Circuit.

A US appeals court has ruled against banning rapid-fire devices for semi-automatic weapons

Source link A US appeals court has ruled against banning rapid-fire devices for semi-automatic weapons