On February 4, 2022, the Tennessee Firearms Association joined forces with Gun Owners of America by filing an amicus brief, a pleading commonly also referred to as a “friend of the court” pleading, in the case of Cargill v. Garland, which is pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Other organizations joining in this filing include Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Arizona Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Heller Foundation.
The Cargill case was filed in 2019 to challenge the authority of the BATF to adopt a regulatory definition which materially expanded the definition of a machinegun which had been written by Congress. For years, BATF interpretations had concluded that bump-stock devices are not machineguns as defined by Congress. Then, after then president Donald Trump reacted to the Las Vegas shooting, BATF suddenly and completely changed course and redefined the congressional term “machinegun” to include bump-stock devices.
At trial, the federal district court deferred to the BATF’s actions and a three judge appellate panel in the 5th Circuit agreed. However, the entire panel of appellate judges in the 5th Circuit decided to rehear the case over in what is referred to as an en banc proceeding where the appeal will now be heard and decided by all of the 26 federal judges in the 5th Circuit.
The issues in the case are quite limited but yet federal courts across the nation seem to be getting it consistently wrong. There are two issues. First, is the question of whether a bump-stock fits the congressional definition of a machinegun. Now, it is undisputed that prior to the Las Vegas shooting and prior to Donald Trump directing BATF to ban bumpstocks, BATF has pretty much consistently concluded that bumpstocks were not machineguns and did not convert existing semi-automatic firearms into machineguns. The only thing that changed is that BATF suddenly changed its regulatory interpretation of a term defined by Congress. Congress did not do anything to change the meaning of what a machinegun is.
The second issue in these cases is really one that goes to the very core of our constitutional structure involving the three branches of government and the separation of powers. This issue address the prohibition on a federal administrative agency – such as BATF – or the executive branch itself can by exercise of their limited constitutional powers exercise powers that are given only to the legislative branch. The courts which have looked at this issue relative to the bumpstock issue have largely ignored that prohibition because applying it would mean that the bumpstock ban by BATF is unconstitutional.
This is not the first federal appellate case where TFA has gotten involved to fight for our rights and it likely will not be the last. Each time TFA gets involved in one of these cases it contributes as one of the amicus parties to the legal fees and expenses of preparing and filing the federal pleadings.
You can help and we need your help. If you are a TFA member, consider a supplemental member donation to help offset the expenses and costs of fighting in the federal appellate system. [Note: Although TFA Executive Director John Harris is an attorney and participates as an attorney in these appellate filings, including this one, the donations are used to pay expenses to third parties since Harris donates his time for these projects.]
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.