Ammo For Sale

« « Interesting thought experiment | Home | Gun Porn » »

Bump Stock Ban to SCOTUS

The Firearms Policy Commission is trying:

Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Florida Carry, and individuals Damien Guedes, Missouri State Rep. Shane Roden, David Codrea, Scott Heuman, and Owen Monroe have filed a petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of a D.C. Circuit opinion that allowed the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to impose criminal liability on potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans through executive overreach in the agencys bump-stock rule. The cert. petition and appendix are available at

I think it’s unlikely they hear the case. However, I wouldn’t mind being wrong.

4 Responses to “Bump Stock Ban to SCOTUS”

  1. wizardpc Says:

    Didn’t you hear? This was Trump’s super duper secret plan all along! See the theory goes like this:
    1. Ban bumpstocks by classifying them as machineguns even though they clearly do not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun
    2. Everyone destroys their bumpstocks or risks prison
    3. Couple-three people get their lives ruined or killed over the ban (we seem to have skipped over this one so far)
    4. Some amount of years later, the Supreme Court declares the ban unconstitutional, thus making them legal again!

    I mean I just would have started with “don’t ban them” and ended up in the same place with a whole lot less economic damage but whatever.

    Oh, and the people pushing this BS always seem to forget step 5: Congress just legislatively bans them in a constitutional manner.

  2. beatbox Says:

    Dumb case. Could do more damage than good if heard.

  3. HSR47 Says:

    @Wizard: If the stars align, and the light shines down from the heavens, the ideal outcome would be for SCOTUS to rule both the Hughes ban and the ban on registration of existing guns unconstitutional–They both prove that the purpose of the NFA as a whole is not actually taxation. I’m not hugely optimistic about that at the present though, until/unless Ginsburg retires and is replaced by a firm pro-gun justice.

    @Beatbox: Could you please elaborate? I’ve certainly seen plenty of 2A cases that were argued incompetently. Is that what you’re suggesting here? Could you point to what makes you say that? I haven’t read the briefs, and I’m honestly curious.

  4. Diomedes Says:

    Interesting. From the petition, the appellants aren’t making a Second Amendment argument at all, but are focusing on Chevron application and the BATF’s ability to interpret the NFA.