{"id":99790,"date":"2024-02-03T23:02:06","date_gmt":"2024-02-04T05:02:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99790"},"modified":"2024-02-03T23:02:06","modified_gmt":"2024-02-04T05:02:06","slug":"99790","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99790","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Numerous Amici Join NCLA\u2019s Ask for Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF\u2019s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
New Civil Liberties Alliance<\/span><\/div>\n
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill<\/em><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Washington, D.C., Feb. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ten U.S. Senators, ten law professors, and multiple civil liberties groups, policy research organizations and attorneys have filed 13\u00a0amicus curiae<\/i>\u00a0briefs supporting the New Civil Liberties Alliance\u2019s\u00a0position in the Garland v. Cargill case that bump stocks are not machine guns. Representing Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill, NCLA challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives\u2019 Bump Stock Final Rule and ATF\u2019s expansion of the criminal scope of a statute by administrative fiat. The Final Rule reversed ATF\u2019s long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are\u00a0not\u00a0illegal machine guns, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rightly shot down the Rule early last year.<\/p>\n

NCLA has arranged for former Texas Solicitor-General Jonathan Mitchell to present oral argument to the Supreme Court on Mr. Cargill\u2019s behalf on Feb. 28, urging the Justices to confirm the Fifth Circuit\u2019s ruling. NCLA thanks the\u00a0amicus<\/i>\u00a0parties for standing with Mr. Cargill and thousands of other legal purchasers of bump stocks.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

The\u00a0amici<\/i>\u00a0who filed in support of NCLA\u2019s position include\u00a0U.S. Senators, Professors of Second Amendment Law, and the Independence Institute<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0The Buckeye Institute<\/a>;\u00a0Pacific Legal Foundation<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0Manhattan Institute<\/a>;\u00a0FPC Action Foundation<\/a>;<\/u>\u00a0Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.<\/a>;\u00a0National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers<\/a>;\u00a0National Rifle Association of America, Inc.<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., and Guns Save Life<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and Palmetto State Armory, LLC<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0National Association for Gun Rights, Inc., the National Foundation for Gun Rights, Inc. and Rare Breed Triggers, LLC<\/a><\/u>;\u00a0Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Heller Foundation, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rights Watch International, America\u2019s Future, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund<\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n

The 13\u00a0amicus<\/i>\u00a0briefs reinforce NCLA\u2019s arguments and address a litany of other concerns, including the Rule of Lenity, preventing criminalization of innocent Americans, and\u00a0Chevron<\/i>\u00a0deference. Excerpts follow:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the best tradition of our separation of powers jurisprudence, this Court should apply the criminal laws that Congress has written with unmistakable clarity. If there is reasonable doubt as to meaning, Congress can remove the doubt with new legislation.\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0Sens. Cynthia Lummis, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, John Barrasso, Pete Ricketts, Steve Daines, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mike Rounds, Markwayne Mullin, Professors of Second Amendment Law, Independence Institute<\/a><\/u><\/p>\n

\u201cThe lately nascent view that Lenity should come to play only when such ambiguity \u2026 is \u2018grievous\u2019 threatens to nullify the saving power of the doctrine. The better view is to uphold the classic understanding \u2026 once a court determines there are two or more interpretations of the law, and there remains reasonable doubt as to which of those interpretations correctly applies \u2026, a court should invoke the Rule of Lenity in favor of the defendant, find the least penal option, and await the correction and clarification of the law by the legislature.\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c[C]riminalization through regulation at the whim of everchanging agency determinations \u2018turn[s] the normal construction of criminal statutes upside-down, replacing the doctrine of lenity with a doctrine of severity.\u2019\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0The Buckeye Institute<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cLenity is a traditional interpretive tool that should apply before asking whether an agency interpretation is reasonable. And deferring to an agency under\u00a0Chevron<\/i>\u00a0would be contrary to the Court\u2019s non-deferential approach in other areas of criminal law; it would also undermine due process and the separation of powers.\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0Pacific Legal Foundation<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c[I]n abruptly reversing 11 years of its own findings that bump stocks are not machine guns, ATF\u2019s actions were not based on an alleged statutory ambiguity or agency expertise. Instead, they were done solely as a political expediency to avoid the need for legislation.\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0Manhattan Institute<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThat kind of confiscatory, turn-in-your-lawfully-acquired-property-to-the-feds command is a rarity when it comes to the statute books, because Members of Congress like to be re-elected. But ATF has no such accountability and has shown no such restraint. \u2026 The Court should return ATF to the limited role Congress assigned it before the agency can subject the citizenry to yet another illicit turn of the regulatory vise.\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c[I]f this Court concludes that the statute is ambiguous, it should reject the Solicitor General\u2019s argument that the rule of lenity applies only when a statute is \u2018grievously ambiguous.\u2019\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0FAMM (in an\u00a0amicus curiae<\/i>\u00a0brief filed in support of neither party)<\/a><\/p>\n

NCLA released the following statements:<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThe broad\u00a0amicus<\/i>\u00a0support provided to NCLA\u2019s challenge to ATF well illustrates the public\u2019s disgust with that agency\u2019s abuse of its administrative powers.\u201d
\n\u2014 Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cNCLA greatly appreciates the support from the dozen-plus\u00a0amici<\/i>\u00a0in this case. As we\u2019ve said from the beginning, and as these\u00a0amicus<\/i>\u00a0briefs underscore, this case is about unlawful administrative power, not gun rights.\u201d
\n\u2014 Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA<\/b><\/p>\n

For more information visit the case page\u00a0<\/b>here<\/a>\u00a0or watch the case video\u00a0<\/b>here<\/a>.<\/b><\/p>\n

ABOUT NCLA<\/b><\/p>\n

NCLA<\/a>\u00a0is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar\u00a0Philip Hamburger<\/a> to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA\u2019s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans\u2019 fundamental rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Numerous Amici Join NCLA\u2019s Ask for Supreme Court to Rule Against ATF\u2019s Unilateral Bump Stock Ban New Civil Liberties Alliance Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill Washington, D.C., Feb. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ten U.S. Senators, ten law professors, and multiple civil liberties groups, policy research organizations and attorneys have … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,23,36],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucraps","category-courts","category-gun-schtuff"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=99790"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99790\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":99791,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99790\/revisions\/99791"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=99790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=99790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=99790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}