CINCINNATI, Ohio – A three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) bump stock rule in Hardin v. ATF.
The case centers around a rule made by the ATFs at the urging of then-President Donald Trump after the 2017 tragic attack on country music concertgoers in Las Vegas. The rule reclassified bump stocks as machineguns. The new rule was an about-face by the ATF, which held for years that bump stocks were not machineguns. Initially, the ATF claimed that bump stocks were not machineguns because the user pulls the trigger each time the firearm fires.
The rule change caused multiple challenges to be filed against the ATF in federal court in various circuits. The Tenth Circuit and DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of the ATF’s bump stock rule. A previous Sixth Circuit case split 8-8 on a legal challenge to the Bureau’s regulation. Because of the tie, the District Court’s decision stood, which ruled in favor of the federal government.
The most recent case to be decided is Cargill v. Garland out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The full bench ruled by a margin of 13-3 that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by overstepping its powers. The court also said the rule violated the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity states that when a criminal statute is unambiguous or unclear, the law must be interpreted in favor of the defense. The Court remanded the case back down to the District Court to rule in favor of Michael Cargill and issue appropriate relief. The District Court ruled for Cargill but did not issue any relief. The Federal government would petition the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, and the District Judge would stay the decision until SCOTUS decides if it will take the case.
The Sixth Circuit Court did not rule on a violation of the APA in Hardin. The court did rule that the ATF’s bump stock rule did violate the rule of lenity. The court remanded the case back to the District Court to issue a ruling consistent with the panel’s decision.
“An Act of Congress could clear up the ambiguities, but so far, Congress has failed to act. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (the ATF) has been on both sides of this issue, with its current regulation (the Rule) banning bump stocks as a machinegun part. In this situation, the rule of lenity that is applicable to criminal offenses requires us to rule in favor of Hardin,” wrote Judge Ronald Gilman, a Bill Clinton appointee.
This language isn’t as strong as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and does leave the District Court with a little more wiggle room. The District Court could issue a very narrow ruling only affecting the plaintiff, Scott Hardin. The court is unlikely to issue a nationwide injunction, and any decision might be stayed if the government asks for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the case.
The government could request an en banc hearing from the Sixth Circuit Court. An en banc hearing is when the full bench hears the case. In that situation, the panel’s decision is vacated, but it would be unlikely for an en banc hearing to be granted due to even Democrat appointees ruling against the ATF. It appears that the only path of victory for the government in the case runs through SCOTUS.
Since there are multiple circuit splits dealing with bump stocks, SCOTUS is likely to hear a bump stock case. The government has already petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Cargill. If the high court agrees to hear Cargill or this case, that case will determine the future of the legality of bump stocks.
There is no timeline for the District Court to rule on Hardin using the Circuit Court’s instructions.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
SCOTUS needs to do their damned job and issue a broad ruling on the numerous infringements, to shut them down. It needs to reaffirm the 2nd says exactly what it says, and that the government (both state and federal) has no authority to restrict or limit citizens choice of firearms, or ban firearms and their accessories. It needs to declare the NFA unconstitutional, like a poll tax on guns, and remind the country that all bearable arms, military, militia, hunting, competition, and concealed style are protected from gov interference, including full auto and unlimited magazine size.
What an absolutely logical, reasonable take on this. But by its very reasonableness you must understand it can never happen with our government.
Cappy – “never happen with our current government” – there FIFY.
Your statement doesn’t go far enough in defining the types of arms a People can have. The KEEP part of the statement does not limit the arms to just what you can bear. You, as a People, can have/own any type of arm that the standing military has up to and including a fully armed and manned nuclear submarine or aircraft carrier. The Founders were adamant that The People should be armed with ALL types of arms as used by government so as to not be outgunned.
They need to address suppressors as well, then Srcap the NFA, Scrap the GCA, Scrap Commiefornia, Scrap FATFE…..
A really good ruling on this case could really force the looney left to SHUT THE F’ UP Once and for all…
DON’T TREAD ON ME…. MOLON LABE….. ‘ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ’ ……..
All the different courts making different rulings just goes to show that the common man has more common sense than lawyers, that is why we have juries.
Blanky Blanky lawyers couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with the instructions stamped on the bottom.
They would differ in what constitued the bottom of the boot
“The rule of lenity states that when a criminal statute is unambiguous or unclear, the law must be interpreted in favor of the defense.” Make that “ambiguous.” (Darn that typo demon!)
It is obvious that tyrants will say and do anything to justify their illegal acts and laws. If some of these judges were judging Hitler’s death vamos they’d use the same ” twisted logic” to say Hitler we al was justified. Tyranny can come from a court too and Sunshine Laws and fair & honest voting undermines freedom and liberty. I don’t want Joe Biden’s version of democracy. Patrick Henry.said it at the tag end of a long speech, GIVE NE LIBERTY or go to war to get it. A dozen years later he would not ratify the new constitution… Read more »