Cargill V. Garland – Big Win In 5th Circuit On Bumpstocks

I have not had time to read the whole decision and I have to run in a few minutes to help set up a booth for Grass Roots North Carolina at the local gun show. With that out of the way, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc that the BATFE’s bumpstock ban is invalid. The decision was 13-3.

From the decision:

The definition of “machinegun” as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least. The rule of lenity therefore compels us to construe the statute in Cargill’s favor. Either way, we must REVERSE.

Later the ruling states on the grammatical construction of the law:

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. Nor do we rely on grammar alone. Context firmly corroborates what grammar initially suggests by demonstrating that Congress knew how to write a definition that is keyed to the movement of the trigger finger if it wanted to. But it did not. The Government offers nothing to overcome this plain reading, so that we are obliged to conclude that the statutory definition of machinegun unambiguously turns on the movement of the trigger and not a trigger finger.

The court does take up Chevron deference and states it does not apply here as the wording of the statute is unambiguous.

The opinion of the court was written by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

5th Circuit Affirms Ban On Sale Of Handguns To 18-20 Year Olds

In a decision released today, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court opinion of Judge Sam Cummings that banning sales of handguns by FFLs to those over 18 but under 21 is legal. This case, originally named D’Cruz v. BATFE and now titled Jennings et al v. BATFE, was brought in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas back in September 2010 by the National Rifle Association.

According to a Reuters report on the 5th Circuit’s decision:

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Houston rejected the NRA’s argument that 18- to 20-year-olds had a right to buy the guns under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A unanimous three-judge panel said Congress, in a law dating from 1968, adopted the sales ban to help curb violent crime. It also said that the nation’s founders and 19th-century courts and commentators believed that disarming specific groups did not trample on the right to bear arms.

“Congress was focused on a particular problem: young persons under 21, who are immature and prone to violence, easily accessing handguns,” mainly from licensed dealers, Judge Edward Prado wrote for the panel.

“The present ban appears consistent with a longstanding tradition of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms,” he added.
 

You may remember that the Brady Campaign and other gun prohibitionist played gutter politics with this case. They accused James D’Cruz, then a freshman at Texas Tech, of having a Facebook page filled with “angry, violent Facebook postings.” D’Cruz was further demonized by Josh Horwitz of CSGV who said “he’s a poster boy for why we should prevent handgun sales to those under 21 years of age” and implied that he sounded like a school shooter.

The full 41 page opinion of the 5th Circuit can be found here. I have not had time to read it but hope to have an update posted after I have done so.