DC Appeals issues stay Bump Stock ban Damien Guedes only

[bignflnut]

Thursday, a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the ATF’s new rule that re-classifies bump stocks as machine guns. That ruling only applies to the plaintiff who filed that suit. Today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has done the same thing.

Like the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, this one only applies to plaintiff Damien Guedes who brought the suit along with the Firearms Policy Coalition. Their lawsuit challenging the bump stock ban was initially denied by a District Court, but a DC Circuit three-judge panel today has agreed to issue the stay.

How does this work, legal eagles? Is there some precedent for this idea?
We will stop the law for this one individual while we test its constitutional muster for all!

Why is this only being applied to individuals and not as a whole?

The D.C. Circuit panel issued the order on its own motion (“FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion…” Order at 2.). Our requested relief was for all affected persons (not just the named parties). In light of the stay today we have asked the government if they would voluntarily move the deadline back for all people, recognizing that these issues are serious and that people should not be threatened with prosecution while the issues are still up in the air. Even if they decline, we hope to expand on this stay order to protect everyone affected before the deadline.

I’m curious *how* it can be ordered to be so-applied, also. What, are these two guys gonna end up with the only transferable bump stocks? Will the Hughes Amendment be clearly broken but only for them, despite the whole ‘equal protection under the law’ thing?

[WhyNot]

Updated in ^^above thread.

Stay vigilant!

[bignflnut]

U.S. District Court Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, nominated to the court by President Donald Trump, ruled against motions for a preliminary injunction to find for the administration in the cases of Guedes, et al., v. ATF and Codrea, et al. v. William P. Barr. Of specific relevance, without citing evidence she states bump stocks were “used” and further asserted:

“The Las Vegas attack served as the impetus for ATF’s decision to reconsider its legal interpretation of ‘machinegun,’ but it did not provide a factual basis for the rule.”

In other words, whether the excuse for banning bump stock-type devices was true or not, what happened in Vegas was irrelevant? Yet she insists ATF had “good cause” for the rule?

If the level of scrutiny ever enters into the picture, it would help to know if there is a compelling government interest and the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve that result, or if a lesser standard applies. Like a scapegoat is needed…

As it stands now, much of the noise – and ugly noise at that – has been leveled not at the government, but at those raising questions about its conduct and its lack of candor. There is a certain class of bloviating forum-dweller that exists to be anonymously obnoxious, making fair the question “Why are some gun owners defending government stonewalling and misrepresenting those questioning it as conspiracy theorists?”

Who wouldn’t want to know the truth about something that’s been used as “justification” to subvert property rights and choices, and done so in a way that lends itself to further infringements against gun owners? Especially if/when Democrats retake the White House and argue “Trump did it” when they order new and expanded bans?