https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-supreme-court-grants-cert-will-hear-case-challenging-trumps-bump-stock-ban/

Time to lay in a heavier supply of popcorn. Today the Supreme Court granted cert in Cargill v. Garland, the case challenging the Trump erabump stock ban. The about face by the ATF following the Las Vegas mass shooting came at the direction of the Trump administration. ATF, which had previously approved sales of bump fire stocks as legal accessories used regulatory fiat to do a 180 and reclassify them as machine guns.

The Supreme Court’s hand was forced here by a circuit court split. While bump stock bans had been upheld in the Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional.

From NBC News . . .

Those challenging the ban said the legal definition of machine gunhas been distorted beyond recognition and argue that courts should not defer to the federal agency’s interpretation.

Well yes. The definition of a machine gun has been established in law by Congress. The Chevron deference that courts usually give to federal regulatory agencies doesn’t apply in this case because of the clear redefinition of what constitutes a machine gun under the Gun Control Act of 1934. ATF bases its expanded redefinition of bump stocks on the 1968 Gun Control Act.

We shall see which version prevails. Court watchers have guessed that the Justices are looking for ways of chopping the legs out from under Chevron deference. This may give them a good opportunity to do just that.

To me, this will be an interesting one to watch post-Bruen.

Agreed. I am wondering if this might somehow help the AWB cause.

Because inanimate objects move on their own.

What a waste of a 2A SCOTUS case. Mag limits and/or so called AWB would have been a much better use of our 2A case opportunities.

Not when you understand that this case is not so much about the 2A or a piece of plastic that lets you shoot a little faster if you want, it's about the over-reach of the alphabet agencies. Same with the fishing boat case that will also be heard by SCOTUS.

A big win here is a BIG win for every 2A cause and case.

They are in common use... just like adjustable stocks, flash suppressors and mags with capacities greater than 10/15 rounds. I may be dreaming but may it tangentially helps our cause.

2 hours ago, Xtors said:

They are in common use.

I hate to play devil's advocate but, they really are not in common use.  Bump stocks are more of a novelty, a gimmick.   Full auto sears however, are in common use.  How's that for irony.

On 11/5/2023 at 6:54 PM, Scorpio64 said:

I hate to play devil's advocate but, they really are not in common use.  Bump stocks are more of a novelty, a gimmick.   Full auto sears however, are in common use.  How's that for irony.

As much as you may not be into them, there were apparently a LOT of bump stocks created and sold just based on the numbers that were destroyed while still in the possession of the manufacturer. Unless they were warehousing decades of inventory, they are in common use. 

55 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

As much as you may not be into them,

It has nothing to do with whether I like them or not.  The inescapable fact is that they are a novelty item, a sort of reliable device that sometimes simulates full auto.  it is what it is, a gimmick.  I just don't think that common use can be established.

2 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

It has nothing to do with whether I like them or not.  The inescapable fact is that they are a novelty item, a sort of reliable device that sometimes simulates full auto.  it is what it is, a gimmick.  I just don't think that common use can be established.

What does being a gimmick have to do with common use? I think you are mistaking commonly applied in practical situations for common use. 

2 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

I just don't think that common use can be established.

IIRC 200,000 tasers owned by members of the public for lawful purposes was sufficient to establish common use in Caetano v. Massachusetts. I don't think that is a difficult hurdle to overcome for the number of bump stocks owned, whether as a novelty item or otherwise.