Search

Cargill: We Can Use the Bump Stock Ruling to Protect Everything

michael cargill
Dan Z. for SNW

I was told over five years ago, ‘Why are you going down this road? No one cares about bump stocks. Let’s go ahead and let them take the bump stocks.’ But instead, I stood and fought. And because of this, the bump stock case is gonna be the case that saves everything. 

It’s gonna stop the ATF from coming after your brace, the triggers, all different parts and pieces that they’re trying to ban. And I’m glad I stood up and fought. 

So now, we have a case that is case law that we can move forward around this country and defend our Second Amendment rights. As always, more guns equals less crime. You go out there and you buy yourself a gun. Better yet, get yourself a bump stock. 

Michael Cargill on X

 

 

7 Responses

  1. As I understand it, the Court didn’t outright say bumpstocks were legal, it only said the BATF cannot make law on their own.

    There’s nothing stopping Congress from passing a law that will declare them illegal and force you to destroy or surrender the ones you own.

    Or am I wrong on that?

      1. You obviously are unable to understand what happened in the ‘Cargill’ ruling…

        1. To clarify, read this, with an emphasis on comprehension :

          “As Dan’s initial post reported, in an opinion by the ever-reliable Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court drop-kicked the ATF’s reinterpretation of the National Firearms Act, depositing it on the ash heap of history.

          However, for those of you looking for another expansion of Second Amendment rights, you won’t find it here. Garland v. Cargill is and always has been strictly based on whether the ATF’s reinterpretation of the statutory definition of “machinegun” in the NFA was consistent with the law, as written. As I and others have long reported, this case has not and never has been Second Amendment-related.”

          https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/06/14/what-todays-ruling-in-cargill-means-for-the-2a-and-other-gun-related-cases/

        2. Agreed, Geoff, as per my understanding of things. This case was more on Chevron deference than the actual bump stock itself. I’m curious to see if/how this will be used as precedence to knock down other anti-2A areas Guv has been messing around with.

  2. Geoff is correct. While the underlying item was a firearm accessory, the ruling didn’t address its legality. The decision was limited to addressing the ATF’s misuse of its statutory authority. I believe the issue will be the same for the pistol brace cases, and possibly as well for the change in the definition of a “dealer” recently made by the ATF. Only Congress can make laws, and the Administrative Procedures Act defines how far an agency can go in rulemaking related to a particular law. Congress can still act to make bump stocks or pistol braces illegal which is why we need to work hard to elect 2A supporters to Congress.

    1. This is why the whole ruling was baffling. There was no Constitutional [other than separation of powers] / 2nd Amendment challenge here. The entire dissent was “we agree with the ATF that the bump stock converts the gun into a MG, even though for 10 years, they said it didn’t. We’re ok with the administrative state changing their mind to achieve an end-means result [which Bruen declared end-means tests for Rights to be unreasonable]. Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that bump-firing without a bump stock does not create a regulated machine gun, which looks/walks/talks like the same duck….”.

      If Congress were to act to change the definition of a MG (to say, include bump stocks or similar), that could actually be good in the long run, pending a 2A challenge, and at least open the MG registry. The logic being that if bump stocks are MGs, then MGs cannot be dangerous and unusual because there were well over 200k (the number used for commonality of stun guns – ie if something is common, it cannot be unusual) manufactured/sold by SlideFire. Since they cannot be dangerous and unusual, they cannot be banned. That means the Hughes Amendment, at least, would be unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *