The Firearms Policy Coalition and Cato Institute have filed an amicus brief in Gun Owners of America v. Barr, the GOA’s bump-fire stock case in the 6th Circuit.

Read it. It’s only 17 pages in full, and the brief proper is just 11 pages (the remainder being the standard legal paperwork administrivia).

Yes, read it; but I’m going to distill the basic message for you anyway.

The ATF’s Interpretative Reversal Is Based on Political Expediency, Not Statutory Ambiguity
[…]
What prompted this reversal? The proposed rulemaking reveals that the impetus for this change in position was not an organic review of agency policy. Instead, the change was triggered by public outrage following the October 2017 mass killing in Las Vegas, which likely involved a bump-stock-type device:
[…]
The ATF admits that the rulemaking was commenced “in response” to outside political pressure.
[…]
On February 28, 2018, the president hosted a meeting with members of Congress to discuss school and community safety. […] President Trump interjected that there was no need for legislation because he would deal with bump stocks through executive action:

“And I’m going to write that out. Because we can do that with an executive order. I’m going to write the bump stock; essentially, write it out. So you won’t have to worry about bump stock.”
[…]
Reportedly, Justice Department officials told Senate Judiciary Committee staff that the government “would not be able to take [bump stocks] off shelves without new legislation from Congress.”

Likewise, the ATF director told police chiefs that his agency “did not currently have
the regulatory power to control sales of bump stocks.”

While the Department stated that “no final determination had been made,” President Trump boasted that the “legal papers” to prohibit bump stocks were almost completed. […] [B]efore the rulemaking was announced, President Trump tweeted: “Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.”

Right there, they document that the decision had been made, regardless of the actual rulemaking process or facts, and that it deliberately bypassed legislation. We knew that, of course, but they collated and documented it in incriminating detail.

This is now a test of the court itself, not just ATF or DOJ. Taking the longer view, because I anticipate the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals blowing this off, it is a test of the Supreme Court.

If the ban is upheld, despite flawed regulatory practices (which didn’t really matter, as the process was a Potemkin show to pretend they weren’t actually banning by political fiat), and the grossly improper bypassing of Congress, there is no law.

By and large, honest gun owners try to live by the Constitution and the rule of law. We’ve put up with much over the decades because it was framed as “law,” and we thought we, too, had the courts and law to make our case for freedom. The politicians, bureaucrats, and especially the courts must consider the ramifications of making that impossible.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]