Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district courtroom choice which had denied Gun Owners of America’s movement for a preliminary injunction stopping the ATF from implementing a remaining rule classifying bump shares as machine weapons beneath federal legislation.
This case was introduced by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Matt Watkins, Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel, and GOA’s Texas Director, Rachel Malone.
“Today’s court decision is great news and told gun owners what they already knew,” mentioned GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt. “We are glad the courtapplied the statute ccurately, and struck down the ATF’s illegal overreach and infringement of gun owners’ rights.”
“Chevron deference does not apply to agency interpretation of criminal statute thus court does not need to decide whether agency can waive chevron deference therefore court must determine BEST MEANING of the statute the “statutory context” of “single function of the trigger” “weighs heavily in Plaintiff-Appellants’ favor” undertake our place that it “refers to the mechanical process”
Pratt added that the courtroom understood our argument after they included within the opinion that: “A bump stock may change how the pull of the trigger is accomplished, but it does not change the fact that the semiautomatic firearm shoots only one shot for each pull of the trigger.”
“With or without a bump stock, a semiautomatic firearm is capable of firing only a single shot for each pull of the trigger and is unable to fire again until the trigger is released and the hammer of the firearm is reset.”
NOTE: Bump Stocks Are Not Yet Legal
This is an order reversing the district courtroom’s choice, instructing the decrease courtroom that it ought to have granted the GOA’s injunction. However, GOA’s attorneys are to temporary the scope of the injunction to the district courtroom. No matter what the district courtroom decides as to the scope of the injunction, “the scope may not exceed the bounds of the four states within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction and, of course, encompasses the parties themselves.”