Bump Stock Ban Struck Down

[WLJ]

Breaking News

And I get the distinct impression the person who wrote the article isn't happy about it

A Trump administration ban on bump stocks — devices that enable a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull — was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

US Appeals Court Blocks Ban on Rapid-Fire 'Bump Stocks'
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2023-01-06/us-appeals-court-blocks-ban-on-rapid-fire-bump-stocks

[WLJ]

 BREAKING NEWS: Bump Stock Ban Struck Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij7E5CAymiQ

[Hawkmoon]

Overdue. Good, we now have a circuit split, so maybe the SCOTUS will get involved.

Imagine the nerve of a bunch of judges, actually reading the law and then ruling on what it says rather than what someoe would like it to say.

The full appeals court Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They had argued that the trigger itself functions multiple times when a bump stock is used, so therefore bump stock weapons do not qualify as machine guns under federal law. They point to language in the law that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times with a “single function of the trigger.”

But here's an example of how the left thinks:

In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don't fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority's interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

[Pb]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

That sounds suspiciously like the rule of law to me.   

[Perd Hapley]

That sounds suspiciously like the rule of law to me.   

Which is probably racist.

[Hawkmoon]

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

That sounds suspiciously like the rule of law to me. 

There are those who just can't stand that.

Many years ago, while wearing my architect hat, I had a client who bought a small mansion in a mostly rural town with the intention of using it as his company's headquarters. The business dealt in specialized, custom software serving a particular market niche. Using a house as a business didn't violate that town's zoning regulations, but the first architect the guy contacted told him it couldn't be done under the building code without spending more money than it was worth. Someone then referred him to me, and my first question of him and the original architect was, "Did you review it under the Existing Building Code? (That's a separate code book that most states also adopt.) The answer, of course, was "Huh?", so I did a deep dive through the Existing Building Code and found that, basically, all he was required to do was to paint a single handicapped parking space on the driveway, and build a ramp to make one of the doors an accessible entrance.

There was a clause in the Existing Building Code that completely cancelled out the Fire Code, The local fire marshal, a woman, didn't like the project so she called the State Building Inspector (who conveniently happened to be a personal friend) and whined about (as I heard later from someone in a position to know), "But how do I get into MY code for this project?"

She couldn't -- legally. Not to fear, though. Her pal came to the rescue. He did something unprecedented. He submitted a request for interpretation to himself, and then used that to interpret that provision of the code to mean the exact opposite of what it plainly said. His department's legal advisor from the AG's office told him he couldn't do that, and he did it anyway.

In the end, my client did a bit more than he should have been required to do, but he was allowed to turn the house into his corporate headquarters. No thanks to Madame Fire Marshal.

[AZRedhawk44]

In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don't fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority's interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.

This person needs to be removed from judicial duties, disbarred, and have all of his forks in his silverware drawer affixed with safety corks.  One might considers lists and walls as well, if one were uncivilized enough to keep a long memory and a focused objective.