I’m human. When I’m right, I like to brag as much as anyone else. And sometimes that means going full-blown “I told you so.”
The Fifthth Circuit ruling in Cargill v. Garland is one of those times. The Fifth overturned the lower court which had found that the ATF’s bump stock (bump stock type device) ban-through-redefining-them-as-machineguns was lawful.
How right was I? This right.
Deference
I noted that Chevron deference 1) only applies when a statute is vague, and 2) should not apply to criminal penalties, only civil. The Fifth agrees with me.
A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.
[…]
Because we hold that the statute is unambiguous, Chevron deference does not apply even if the Chevron framework does.
Usurping Power of Congress
Congress makes laws, and the President signs them into effect. Hopped up, unelected bureaucrats do not. Again, the Fifth Circuit says I’m correct.
Of the sixteen members of our court, thirteen of us agree that an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks, and that we therefore must reverse.
Redefining Trigger To Mean Finger
I pointed out that applying the definition of “function of the trigger to — volitional! — movement of the finger was a semantic nightmare that only made sense to politically driven tyrants who don’t give a damn about actual law. The Fifth Circuit… Yep.
The statutory definition of machinegun utilizes a grammatical construction that ties the definition to the movement of the trigger itself, and not the movement of a trigger finger.
The Court did not get into my point that the bump stock rule-making process violated the Administrative Procedures Act, but given that they found the rule itself is outright wrong, the additional flawed process implementing it was moot.
Since we have a Circuit split on bump stocks, maybe SCOTUS will finally grant cert and hear a case on the ban. I would love to read what Justice Thomas might have to say abou itt; his BRUEN decision was brilliant.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion; when I saw that, I knew it was going to good. He goes into history in surprising detail. This opinion could be used as an American history textbook for a complete school year.
Thomas could create another year of lessons on this one: legislative process and history.
Gab Pay link (More Tip Jar Options) |
