Cartoon Of The Day

I found this on MeWe posted by a friend.

Reinterpreting regulations in such a way as to make possession of an item a felony is the modus operandi of the BATFE. They did it with bump stocks and they are doing it now with pistol braces.

It is now up to the courts to push back on this. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did it with Cargill v. Garland. There are now at least four cases before US District Courts challenging the BATFE on their new pistol brace rule. Fingers crossed that the judges will do the right thing.

Interesting Factoid On Cargill Win

I stumbled across an interesting factoid on the bumpstock case win in the 5th Circuit. The appellant, Michael Cargill, was represented in the case by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The attorneys representing Mr. Cargill in the appeal were Richard Samp, Mark Chenoweth, and Harriet Hageman.

Wait a minute – Harriet Hageman? Where have I heard that name before? Didn’t someone by that name defeat former Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-WY) in the primary and go on to win the seat in Congress representing Wyoming?

New Civil Liberties Alliance

Before Harriet Hageman was Congresswoman Hageman, she was Harriet Hageman, Senior Litigation Counsel of the NCLA.

From what I understand she has not been assigned any committees yet. However, wouldn’t it be wonderful to have someone like her on the House Judiciary Committee. Think of it. Not only did she defeat the DOJ and BATFE in court, she would now be on the House committee overseeing them. That would be karma!

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.