U.S. Supreme Court Invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stock Rifles as Machineguns
In the Garland v. Cargill case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is NOT a machinegun, and that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by issuing a rule that classified the device as a machinegun. Accordingly the Supreme Court has determined the ATF’s bump stock rule to be void and invalid.
SAF Hails U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Bump Stocks: “ATF Can’t Rewrite Law”
“This is a significant victory for gun owners because it reminds the ATF it simply cannot rewrite federal law,” said Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) Executive VP Alan M. Gottlieb. “The agency has just been reminded that it can only enforce the law, not usurp the authority of Congress.”
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas observed, “We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’ And, even if it could, it would not do so ‘automatically’ ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.”
For many years, the court ruling notes, ATF “took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns” under the law. The agency “abruptly reversed course” in response to the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017. The agency subsequently ordered bump stock owners to surrender them or destroy them within 90 days.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision demonstrates that it is impermissible for executive agencies to rewrite the law,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that was logically inconsistent with the plain text of the statute and cut into the prerogative of Congress. As the executive branch has continued to use ATF to implement its will and circumvent congressional authority, we are optimistic that today’s decision will send a message that such actions will not be tolerated and that the courts will strike down more regulations inconsistent with the law as Congress wrote.”
About the Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, SAF has grown to more than 720,000 members.
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court Overturns ATF Rule Banning Bump Stocks"
The NRA has scored a major legal victory, winning a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that New York State officials acted improperly in trying to influence multiple financial entities and insurance companies to halt their relationships with the NRA.
The Shooting Wire reports: “Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association’s free speech rights were violated when the top financial regulator for New York State pushed banks and insurance companies to sever ties with [the NRA]. The opinion wasn’t just unanimous, it was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not one of the ‘usual’ 2A supporters. But her opinion wasn’t about the mission of the NRA, it was about the organization’s ‘plausible allegation’ that the New York regulators violated the First Amendment.”
Justice Sotomayor wrote, “The critical takeaway, is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.” Sotomayer continued: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
The majority opinion did suggest that NY insurance regulatory officials were allowed to pursue violations of New York’s state insurance laws. However, the the First Amendment violation occurred when New York’s Insurance Commissioner acted “to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. Because the complaint plausibly alleges that Vuollo (the commissioner) did just that, the court holds that the NRA stated a First Amendment violation.”
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of NRA in New York Challenge"
Click image for lengthy podcast about NYSRPA v. Bruen U.S. Supreme Court case.
In an historic Second Amendment decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York state law requiring “proper cause” for law-abiding gun owners to obtain a carry permit. The landmark case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen et al. CLICK HERE to read the decision (135-page PDF).
The Court’s 6-3 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen was written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The majority ruled: “The Court holds that New York’s proper cause requirement to obtain a concealed carry license violates the Constitution by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense”. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented. SEE: Legal Analysis by The Federalist Society.
In the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Thomas concluded: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees’. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
NOTE: This video was recorded BEFORE the NYRPA v. Bruen decision was released.
Share the post "Saturday Movies: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Right to Carry"
U.S. Supreme Court building, photo by Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0.
A major Second Amendment case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). At issue are restrictive New York State gun control laws which make it virtually impossible to carry handguns in some New York cities. This case, officially New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, could be the most important gun rights case in the last decade. With its decision, the Supreme Court could establish once and for all that there is an individual right to self-defense outside of the home.
Dave Workman, posting on Ammoland.com, explains: “The case, which was accepted for review by the high court in the upcoming term that begins in October, challenges New York’s restrictive requirement that anyone applying for a permit to carry a handgun outside the home must provide a ‘proper cause’ for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection. This authority is all-too-often used to deny applicants their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment”. Along with the plaintiff New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. (NYSRPA), the restrictive laws are being challenged by the Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms (CCKRBA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).
“A right limited to someone’s home… is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.” — Alan Gottlieb, SAF
In addition to ruling on the restrictive NY laws, this case will give the High Court the opportunity to clarify Second Amendment legal precedents. It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense in District of Columbia v. Heller. In 2010, the Court also ruled that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
Case is Very Important for Second Amendment Rights
The NRA-ILA states: “It is hard to overstate how important this case is. The decision will affect the laws in many states that currently restrict carrying a firearm outside of the home. NRA-ILA is working hard to defend your constitutional rights and is prepared to argue this case in order to protect the rights of Americans everywhere.”
This could be the most important Second Amendment decision since D.C. v. Heller. The Supreme Court has not decided a major Second Amendment cast for over a decade. The make-up of the Court has changed, and this could result is a far-reaching decision that would impact multiple states.
Dave Workman explained: “It has been more than ten years since the Supreme Court hear a Second Amendment case. The court has declined to review several good gun rights cases, but that was before the SCOTUS majority shifted, with … three appointments by former President Donald Trump[.] If the court rules against New York, it will open the floodgates for similar challenges of laws in New Jersey, Maryland and … other states where citizens must provide a ‘good cause’ to exercise their constitutional rights.”
SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb stated that “so-called ‘proper cause’ requirements are routinely used to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to carrying firearms for personal protection outside their homes. Such laws are arbitrary in nature and they place an absurd level of authority in the hands of local officials and their subordinates to deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear NRA-backed case about New York state’s concealed carry laws.
Gottlieb added: “The Second Amendment should no longer be treated like the ugly stepchild of the Bill of Rights. Its language is clear, that the amendment protects not only the right of the individual citizen to keep arms, but to bear them, and that right extends beyond the confines of one’s home. A right limited to someone’s home is no right at all, and the court now has an opportunity to make that abundantly clear, settling an important constitutional issue once and for all.”
Two national gun rights organizations — the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms — have filed amicus briefs in support of the NYSRPA’s challenge to New York’s ultra-restrictive carry laws. You can read the text of the briefs below. For easier reading, ZOOM IN via the PLUS SYMBOL below each entry, or click the FULL PAGE icon (ARROW symbol at extreme right).
Amicus Briefs Filed by CCKRBA and SAF (Click + to Zoom)
There’s a good episode of Gun Talk Radio this Sunday, 10/18/2020. This week’s broadcast will cover a variety of topics. First the broadcast will focus on the importance of confirming Judge Amy Barrett as the new U.S. Supreme Court Justice. In addition, the show will explain the best way to purchase and register a silencer in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations.
This week, Tom Gresham talks with the Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb. They discuss what’s at stake when filling Justice Ginsburg’s seat, and what major gun rights cases SCOTUS might decide in 2021. Plus Brandon Maddox of Silencer Central discusses how his company makes it easy to get a suppressor — Silencer Central will prepare AND file the ATF paperwork for you. Call 866-TALK-GUN with your comments and questions.
Big Prizes for “Enter… If You Dare” Contest
In addition GunTalk Radio is running a great “Enter… If You Dare” contest right now. The giveaway Grand Prize winner receives a Springfield Armory XD-M Elite Optics Ready 9mm pistol, a SilencerCo compact Omega 36M modular suppressor, a Crimson Trace red dot reflex sight, AND a $400 gift certificate from Galco. Four First Prize winners will take home a $150 Galco gift certificate, plus one of four triggers from Timney Triggers. Enter now through Friday, October 30th at GunTalk.com/WIN.
Gun Talk Radio — Podcast Archive
If you miss the live show broadcast or Live Streaming, past broadcasts can be heard online via the GUNTALK PODCAST Site and Apple iTunes. The Gun Talk Podcast Archive has hundreds of past shows you can access via the internet. Here’s an informative podcast focusing on firearms selection for self-defense.
Gun Talk Podcast from 5/31/2020 — Security, Riots, and Gun Choices:
All Gun Talk shows are also archived as podcasts for download or online listening. Gun Talk is also available on YouTube, Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, and GunTalk.com.
Share the post "Supreme Court, Silencers, Contests and More on GunTalk Radio"
Commentary by Dean Weingarten,Gun Watch
In an historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”. As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision [could be] applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns. From nbcnews.com:
“But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court [on 3/21/2016] vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation’s founding.”
Referring to its landmark 2008 D.C. v. Heller ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.
The unsigned opinion is very short[.] Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts.
There is strong language in this opinion. If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”.
The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections. This case will be cited far into the future.
The full, unanimous decision, along with Justice Alito’s lengthy concurrence, is found via this LINK:
The U.S Supreme Court has declined to review two cases involving handguns and young adults in the 18 to 20 year-old age bracket. The first case, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, challenged a 1968 law which prohibits FFLs from selling handguns to any person under 21 (including adults 18, 19, and 20 years of age). Arguing that the Second Amendment protects all adult citizens, Petitioners argued that restrictions should be lifted for legal adults over 18 but under 21 years of age. The other case, NRA v. McCraw, sought to over-turn various Texas laws that prevent 18 to 20 year-olds from getting a handgun carry license.
Gun-rights activists have been pressing the nation’s highest court to accept the cases. Those advocates have cited various courts’ resistance to expanding gun ownership rights following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2008 in the Heller case that there is a Constitutional right to gun ownership for self-defense and in 2010 in the McDonald case that found the right applies to state and local gun-control efforts.
Writing in the SCOTUS Blog, Lyle Denniston observes:
The Supreme Court refused on [February 24, 2014], as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.
One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.
Credit G. Salazar for story tip. We welcome reader submissions.
Share the post "U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Review Firearms Cases"
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to adjudicate a case involving a firearms purchase and subsequent resale to a family member. The case of Abramski v. United States, arises from the prosecution of Bruce James Abramski, Jr., a former Virginia police officer, for allegedly making a “straw purchase” of a Glock handgun. Abramski had lawfully purchased a Glock pistol in Virginia, then later resold the Glock to his uncle, a resident of Pennsylvania. Both purchases were conducted through FFLs, with full background checks, and both parties were legally entitled to own a handgun. Abramski arranged the sale in this fashion to take advantage of a discount available to him as a law enforcement officer.
Abramski was indicted and prosecuted for violating Federal laws against “straw purchases”, specifically making a false declaration on BATFE Form 4473, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Abramski challenged the indictment, but the District Court ruled against him and the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision. However, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that there was a split of authority among the Circuits as to whether § 922(a)(6) applied in a case like this one, where the ultimate recipient of the firearm was lawfully entitled to buy a gun himself. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with previous decisions by the Fifth Circuit holding that “straw purchaser” laws are NOT violated if both the original purchaser and secondary buyer are legally entitled to own a firearm. See United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 1997).
The key issue is whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm. The government argues that Abramski broke the law when he checked a box on Form 4473 indicating he was the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm”.
Arguably, Abramski’s purchase and subsequent resale did not violate the intent of the law, since the Glock never ended up in the hands of a criminal (or someone who was otherwise barred from gun ownership). The John Floyd Law Firm explains this argument:
“Attorneys for Abramski sought to have the indictment dismissed on the legal premise that because Abramski and the uncle were both legally entitled to purchase a firearm, Abramski could not be a ‘straw purchaser.’ Attorneys further argued that Abramski’s ‘yes’ answer to question 11(a) on the 4473 that he was actual buyer of the Glock was never intended to be punished under the Gun Control Act of 1968 if the buyer had a legal right to purchase the weapon. The attorneys theorized that the intent of Congress in passing this Act was ‘to make it possible to keep firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them.’
Second Amendment proponents strongly believe there is nothing wrong with a nephew purchasing a weapon he is legally entitled to purchase with the specific intent to sell it to an uncle who is also legally entitled to purchase a weapon. The Fifth Circuit says such a purchase is legal because both parties are legally entitled to purchase and possess a firearm. The Sixth and Eleventh Circuits [and now the Fourth Circuit] say these legal entitlements do not matter.”
Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will decide which interpretation of the law is correct.
CLICK LINKS Below to Read Briefs Filed in Abramski v. U.S.
Lyle Denniston, reporter for the Scotus (Supreme Court of the United States) Blog, attended the oral argument in McDonald v. Chicago (Docket 08-1521) this morning. Analyzing the comments and questions of the Justices, Denniston concluded that the High Court is very likely to extend the Second Amendment to state and municipal actions, on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the Justices were skeptical of the argument that “incorporation” of the Second Amendment was likewise mandated by the “privileges and immunities” section of the 14th Amendment.
Denniston writes: “The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process,” since doing so through another part of the 14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights might emerge.”
During the course of the oral argument, the Justices disagreed as to the scope of the Second Amendment — whether it should be limited to a “core right” of self-defense or whether it could be applied much more broadly in future cases. The Scotus Blog explained: “The liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed ready to concede some — but perhaps fewer — limitations. The eagerly awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. found all members of the Court actively involved except the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas. And, while no one said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second Amendment into the 14th Amendment had already been decided before the argument had even begun, the clear impression was that the Court majority was at least sentimentally in favor of that, with only the dimensions of the expansion to be worked out in this case and in a strong of likely precedents coming as time went on.”
We recommend that those interested in Second Amendment issues read the full Scotus Blog Entry, which includes detailed explanations of the key arguments, and analyses of how individual justices stand on the question of how the Second Amendment should be applied to the States — i.e. whether broadly or narrowly.
Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear New York City’s request to continue a lawsuit that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Glock GmbH.
“We are very pleased by today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to not review lower appellate court rulings that dismissed cases based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “These baseless lawsuits against responsible, law-abiding companies are the type that Congress intended to prevent by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
The city’s lawsuit was originally filed in 2000 by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by Congress in 2005, a federal judge threw out the New York lawsuit. Then in April of 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying the new law was constitutional. New York City’s final recourse was to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on March 9th the High Court refused the case.
U.S. Supreme Court building, photo by Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0.
The unsigned opinion is very short[.] Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence. It could, and should, have gone much further. None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts.
The U.S Supreme Court has declined to review two cases involving handguns and young adults in the 18 to 20 year-old age bracket. The first case, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, challenged a 1968 law which prohibits FFLs from selling handguns to any person under 21 (including adults 18, 19, and 20 years of age). Arguing that the Second Amendment protects all adult citizens, Petitioners argued that restrictions should be lifted for legal adults over 18 but under 21 years of age. The other case, NRA v. McCraw, sought to over-turn various Texas laws that prevent 18 to 20 year-olds from getting a handgun carry license.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to adjudicate a case involving a firearms purchase and subsequent resale to a family member. The case of 
The key issue is whether Abramski committed a crime by buying a gun, and then promptly re-selling it to another person who was legally entitled to own the firearm. The government argues that Abramski broke the law when he checked a box on Form 4473 indicating he was the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm”.
Lyle Denniston, reporter for the 
Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear New York City’s request to continue a lawsuit that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., Colt’s Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Glock GmbH.
