Status of Bump Stocks

[Biggie_Chan]

This is all you need

 

[Falcon1]

That's ONE CASE. Guides v. BATF, from the federal circuit.
There are 11 other circuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
SCOTUS denied cert in March of this year.

Within each circuit, there are many district courts. Only inside that one circuit must all the district courts of that circuit follow the decisions of the court of appeals in that particular circuit.

So, other people across America are free to challenge the federal governments bump stock ban and forfeiture without compensation scheme.

Other district courts outside of the federal circuit can entertain these cases and rule on the merits each one.

Any of those other federal appellate courts may review the decisions rendered at the trial court level (District Court).

It is possible that a circuit may disagree with the court of appeals from the Federal Circuit by finding a second amendment right to own bump fire stocks, or that the method that the federal government used to ban them was improper by being administrative rather than legislative, or that fair market value must be paid to the owners who gave up their property to comply with the new law.

If there is a disagreement or "split" in the Circuits of the US Court of Appeals, it is much more likely the U.S. supreme court will grant certiorari on one of those future cases.

Does that basically force SCOTUS to hear the case, if two circuits split?

 

[gh1950]

Does that basically force SCOTUS to hear the case, if two circuits split?

Nope.

Nothing forces the Supremes to hear anything.

There are plenty of points of law where the circuits have diametrically opposed rules. But if the issue isn't "grave" enough in the Supreme Court's view, they let it ride. Or they wait until the matter is "ripe" for decision.

 

[QRU Armory]

This is all you need
View attachment 2562135

Watch out this will get you 10 years with bubba

 

[Biggie_Chan]

Watch out this will make it full auto.

 

[Blue bio balls]

**** THE ATF

Welcome to the site officer.

 

[spencer60]

Nope.

Nothing forces the Supremes to hear anything.

There are plenty of points of law where the circuits have diametrically opposed rules. But if the issue isn't "grave" enough in the Supreme Court's view, they let it ride. Or they wait until the matter is "ripe" for decision.

This is true, but a split between circuits on a Constitutional issue usually means they will give it a higher priority.

 

[MaconGuns]

thought I may have posted this before but lets refresh it.

 

[MaconGuns]

One more

 

[greg vess]

Still hunks of crap, Always been hunks of crap, always will remain hunks of crap.