On July 20, 2023, Tennessee Firearms Association joined Gun Owners of America, Inc., and other groups in submitting an amicus brief (“friend of the court”) in support of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (asking the Court to accept the appeal) the matter of Guedes et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al., Supreme Court No: 22-1222.
Following the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, President Donald Trump called on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to ban a firearm accessory that is commonly referred to as a “bumpstock”. Although ATF had issued written rulings for many years that these accessories did not convert a semi-automatic firearm in to a machinegun, following this incident the ATF reversed course and issued a ruling that these devices do convert semi-automatic firearms into machineguns. Congress, however, has not changed the definition of a machinegun since the term was put in the National Firearms Act in 1934.
In this case, the question at the heart of this case concerns the meaning of the term “machinegun,” as defined by Congress in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). In 2018, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a set of regulations that reinterpreted “machinegun” more expansively than ever before to prohibit, for the first time, accessories known as non-mechanical bump stocks. When that ruling was challenged across the nation in the federal courts, the district and appellate courts often upheld the Rule. Thus, the questions presented to the Supreme Court in the petition are:
(1) Whether the definition of “machinegun” in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) includes non-mechanical bump stocks.
(2) If the definition of “machinegun” in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) is ambiguous, whether that ambiguity should be construed against the Government.
In the GOA/TFA amicus brief, we argue that the Congressional definition of a machinegun precludes the classification of bumpstocks as a machinegun and, consequently, that the ATF’s Rule is unconstitutional and in conflict with the statutory language. Further, we point out that the law in the Sixth Circuit (which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan) is presently that the ATF’s bumpstock rule is unenforceable.
Tennessee Firearms Association realizes that it is unfortunately necessary to expend the funds to bring these types of lawsuits and to engage in appellate advocacy because the state of Tennessee is simply not zealously defending our constitutional rights (particularly when we have a governor that is attacking them with proposed Red Flag laws). Further, such litigation is necessary because even when the Republicans control Congress, they repeatedly have failed to constrain the ATF, eliminate its funding or simply apply the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” mandate and eliminate any authority of any federal agency to engage in the regulation of the rights of Americans to purchase, own, possess, make, use, sell or practice with firearms.
If you are a TFA member and you support this litigation effort, please consider making voluntary donations to support the work. If you are not a member of TFA but you support this work, you can join today and then we can also ask you to consider voluntary donations for litigation.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.