Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Incoming.... | Main | 2A case coming up in SCOTUS »

10th Circuit on bump stocks

Posted by David Hardy · 13 March 2021 03:07 PM

The 3 judge panel upheld the government's position, a majority of the entire court voted to rehear it en banc, and now the court decides to dismiss the en banc case and reinstate the panel opinion.

The dissents from this lay out a very good legal criticism of the panel discussion. One of these cases might just be cert-worthy, in order to review Chevron deference. Here the court is supposed to defer to the agency interpretation of law (what is a machine gun) when the agency reversed its position... why is its first position not as entitled to deference as its second?

3 Comments | Leave a comment

475okh | March 13, 2021 5:31 PM | Reply

One again “Shall not be infringed “ has changed to read “Shall be infringed “

Michael Murray | March 14, 2021 12:53 PM | Reply

It all comes down to "Because we say so".

"Expedience, not justice, is the rule of contemporary American law.
Abbie Hoffman

“After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Hmm | March 15, 2021 7:20 PM | Reply

The dissents are powerful and persuasive yet they omit to discuss the extraordinary progress of this appeal, Aposhian, in the 10th Circuit.

As the dissenters point out, the government's action is clearly unlawful. But this is a gun-related case and the judges in the panel majority cherish the principle that gun owners must always lose, so they invented a clearly bogus (almost insane) extension of Chevron deference to give the government the win.

Because the panel decision was so bogus, the case drew enough Circuit judges' votes to go en-banc. However, the 10th Circuit has a majority of judges who believe that gun owners must always lose.

This case then presented those judges with a horrible dilemma: if they ruled for the government they would make the panel's bogus Chevron extension (and some related stuff, see the dissents) into Circuit precedent, screwing up all sorts of non-gun-related cases. Yet if they corrected the panel then some gun owners would win.

The case was all set up for an en-banc decision, with briefing and even oral argument complete. What to do? The majority broke the dilemma: without any legal basis (and without even one word of explanation) they D.I.G.'ed the en-banc appeal! That way they fulfilled their imperative that gun owners must always lose, while saving the correction of the panel's Chevron (and related) bogosity for another day, in a future non-gun-related case. (Too bad for the litigants who will suffer in the meantime.)

No doubt D.I.G. orders have been misused before, but still, it is remarkable to see a majority of Circuit judges so openly abuse their colleagues by dismissing a remarkably well-founded en-banc appeal in this fashion.

I wonder whether the 10th Circuit will bother to overrule this case, Aposhian, even by implication in the future. Perhaps all 10th Circuit panels will simply pretend in all non-gun cases that Aposhian just never happened. Insane quasi-Chevron deference will then only apply to gun-related cases and if the government asks for it without a gun connection 10th Circuit panels will give them the fish eye-- Aposhian may become another "ticket good for one ride only."

Of course, the crazy logic of Aposhian may be adopted by other Circuits-- the 2nd, or the 9th would seem like plausible subscribers.

Leave a comment