{"id":144,"date":"2019-04-01T17:21:00","date_gmt":"2019-04-01T17:21:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2019\/04\/01\/dc-circuits-april-fools-joke-on\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:30:02","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:30:02","slug":"dc-circuits-april-fools-joke-on","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=144","title":{"rendered":"DC Circuit&#8217;s April Fools Joke On The Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:6351,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\\\/internet\\\/opinions.nsf\\\/E020C6DFFB0EB5AE852583CF00541653\\\/$file\\\/19-5042-1780398.pdf&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20240913232204\\\/https:\\\/\\\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\\\/internet\\\/opinions.nsf\\\/E020C6DFFB0EB5AE852583CF00541653\\\/$file\\\/19-5042-1780398.pdf&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:25:00&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:503},{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-21 05:47:51&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:404}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-21 05:47:51&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:404},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6352,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/en.wikipedia.org\\\/wiki\\\/Per_curiam_decision&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/web-wp.archive.org\\\/web\\\/20260325091818\\\/https:\\\/\\\/en.wikipedia.org\\\/wiki\\\/Per_curiam_decision&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-17 14:25:02&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-21 05:47:52&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200}],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:{&quot;date&quot;:&quot;2026-04-21 05:47:52&quot;,&quot;http_code&quot;:200},&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nThe US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\/internet\/opinions.nsf\/E020C6DFFB0EB5AE852583CF00541653\/$file\/19-5042-1780398.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">released its decision<\/a> in the combined cases of Guedes et al v. BATFE et al and Codrea et al v. Barr. It was a <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Per_curiam_decision\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">per curiam decision<\/a> with Judge Karen Henderson dissenting in part and concurring in part. The court sided with the District Court in denying the preliminary injunction of the bump stock rule.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i><b>PER<br \/>\nCURIAM<\/b><br \/>\n:  In October 2017, a lone gunman armed with<br \/>\nbump-stock-enhanced  semiautomatic  weapons  murdered  58<br \/>\npeople and wounded hundreds more in a mass shooting at a<br \/>\nconcert in Las Vegas, Nevada.  In the wake of that tragedy, the<br \/>\nBureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco,  Firearms  and  Explosives<br \/>\n(\u201cBureau\u201d) promulgated through formal notice-and-comment<br \/>\nproceedings  a  rule  that  classifies  bump-stock  devices  as<br \/>\nmachine  guns  under  the  National  Firearms  Act,  26  U.S.C.<br \/>\n\u00a7\u00a7 5801\u20135872.<br \/>\nSee<br \/>\nBump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg.<br \/>\n66,514  (Dec.  26,  2018)  (\u201cBump-Stock  Rule\u201d).    The  then-<br \/>\nActing Attorney General Matthew Whitaker initially signed the<br \/>\nfinal Bump-Stock Rule, and Attorney General William Barr<br \/>\nindependently ratified it shortly after taking office.  Bump-<br \/>\nstock  owners  and  advocates  filed  separate  lawsuits  in  the<br \/>\nUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia to<br \/>\nprevent the Rule from taking effect.  The district court denied<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs\u2019 motions for a preliminary injunction to halt the<br \/>\nRule\u2019s effective date.<br \/>\nGuedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,<br \/>\nFirearms, and Explosives<br \/>\n, 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019).<br \/>\nWe affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;The case was heard by Judges Karen Henderson, Sri Srinivasan, and Patricia Millett. Srinivasan and Millett were appointed to the Court of Appeals by former President Obama while Judge Henderson by President George H. W. Bush.<\/p>\n<p>In reaching their decision, the court found that BATFE was entitled to Chevron deference and that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their case as a result.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Henderson parted company with her colleagues and said that the bump stock rule does contradict the statutory definition of a machine gun. As such, she would have granted the injunction.<br \/>\nShe examined the history of the National Firearms Act, rulings of BATFE, the previous rulings that the bump stock was NOT a machine gun, the slow motion video evidence submitted to the District Court, and the affidavit of Richard Vasquez who had done the technical evaluation of the bump stock.<\/p>\n<p>She concluded:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>If the focus is<br \/>\n\u2014as it must<br \/>\nbe\u2014on the trigger,<br \/>\na bump stock<br \/>\ndoes  not  qualify  as  a  \u201cmachinegun.\u201d    A  semiautomatic  rifle<br \/>\nshoots a single round<br \/>\nper pull of the trigger and the bump stock<br \/>\nchanges<br \/>\n only<br \/>\nhow<br \/>\n the pull is accomplished.  Without a bump<br \/>\nstock<br \/>\n, the shooter<br \/>\n pull<br \/>\ns the trigger with his finger for each shot.<br \/>\nWith  a  bump  stock,  however,  the  shooter<br \/>\n\u2014after  the  initial<br \/>\npull<br \/>\n\u2014maintains  backward  pressure  on  the  trigger  and  puts  forward  pressure  on  the  barrel  with  his  non-<br \/>\nshooting  hand;<br \/>\nthese  manual  inputs  cause  the  rifle  to  slide  and  result  in  the<br \/>\nshooter\u2019s<br \/>\nstationary<br \/>\n  finger  pulling  the  trigger.<br \/>\nBump<br \/>\n-Stock<br \/>\n&#8211;<br \/>\nType Devices<br \/>\n, 83 Fed. Reg.<br \/>\n at 66,533 (\u201cThe constant forward<br \/>\npressure with the non-<br \/>\ntrigger hand pushes the firearm forward,<br \/>\nagain  pulling  the  firearm  forward,  engaging  the  trigger,  and<br \/>\nfiring  a  second  round.\u201d).    T<br \/>\nhe  bump  stock  therefore<br \/>\naffects<br \/>\nwhether   the   shooter<br \/>\npull<br \/>\ns<br \/>\n   his<br \/>\ntrigger<br \/>\n   finger   or   keep<br \/>\ns   it<br \/>\nstationary<br \/>\n.    It  does  not  change  the  movement  of  the  trigger<br \/>\nitself<br \/>\n, which \u201c<br \/>\nmust be released, reset, and fully pulled rearward<br \/>\nbefore<br \/>\n[a]<br \/>\n   subsequent   round   can   be   fired.\u201d      Verified<br \/>\nDeclaration  of  Richard  (Rick)  Vasquez,  former  Acting  Chief<br \/>\nof the Firearms Tech<br \/>\n.  Branch of ATF, at 3\u20134.<\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>Like  countless  other  Americans,  I  can  think  of<br \/>\nlittle<br \/>\nlegitimate<br \/>\nuse<br \/>\nfor<br \/>\na  bump  stock.    That  thought<br \/>\n,  however<br \/>\n,  has<br \/>\nnothing to do with the legality<br \/>\n of the Bump Stock Rule.  <b>For<br \/>\nthe  reason<br \/>\ns  detailed<br \/>\nsupra<br \/>\n,  I  believe  the  Bump  Stock  Rule<br \/>\nexpands   the   statutory   definition   of   \u201cmachinegun\u201d   and   is<br \/>\ntherefore<br \/>\nultra  vires<br \/>\n.<\/b>    In  my  view,  the  plaintiffs  are  likely  to<br \/>\nsucceed on<br \/>\n the merits of their challenge and I would grant them<br \/>\npreliminary injunctive relief.   <\/i><br \/>\n<i><br \/><\/i><br \/>\n<i>Accordingly, I respectfully dissent<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its decision in the combined cases of Guedes&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[338,358,339,359,341,360],"class_list":["post-144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bump-stock-ban","tag-chevron-rule","tag-codrea-v-barr","tag-dc-circuit-court-of-appeals","tag-guedes-et-al-v-batfe-et-al","tag-judge-karen-henderson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=144"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11749,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144\/revisions\/11749"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}