I think this is the beginning of overturning illegal decrees by the "unelectorate" .
The U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on Sept. 9, in the case of U.S. v. Ali Alkazahg, said that the 2018 order that “directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [ATF] to issue a new interpretation of a rule—that contradicted the ATF’s previous interpretation—governing legislation from the 1930s.”
“This Executive-Branch change in statutory interpretation aimed to outlaw bump stocks prospectively, without a change in existing statutes,” the court ruled, suggesting that the ATF bypassed Congress by creating a law when only Congress has that power under the Constitution.
In the case, Akazahg, a Marine Corps private, was convicted of possessing two machine guns, which were actually bump stocks, in violation of Articles 83, 107, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Lawyers for the Marine argued that bump stocks didn’t meet the definition of machine guns.
The court ultimately agreed with Akazahg’s lawyers, issuing a unanimous ruling.
“In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA], banning possession of machine guns not owned before 1986,” the judges wrote. “FOPA also banned any parts, to include frames and receivers, which were part of a machine gun or were designed for converting a weapon into a machine gun.”
It added, “Due to having a bump stock, Appellant was charged under the statute which states that a machine gun is ‘any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'” But they said that a bump stock doesn’t meet that definition.
In late 2018, then-acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker amended an ATF rule that determined bump stocks fall within the definition of being a machine gun under federal law.
“Such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger,” says the ATF’s website on the rule. It was established after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, in which a gunman allegedly used semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks to kill 58 people.
But in March 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the ban on bump stocks, disagreeing with the ATF’s interpretation of the law. Despite the court order, the ATF’s website still characterizes the devices as machine guns.
“It is not the role of the executive—particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong,” stated Judges Alice Batchelder and Eric Murphy of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who wrote the 2-1 majority opinion. “Granting the executive the right both to determine a criminal statute’s meaning and to enforce that same criminal statute poses a severe risk to individual liberty,” they noted.
This is an indication that military courts are reading the law correctly. Good news.
I posted something similar in P.W over the weekend.
There's a really important finding in the case, and it goes against "Chevron deference"... a legal precedent where the Government's interpretation is considered law where the law is ambiguous.
The panel here set a new precedent where they declared that the "moral judgement of the people" outweighed "the judgement of agency experts".
This can have bigger ramifications than ATF overreach, think clotshot and OSHA. Also note the Navy/USMC appeals court sits one level below the USSC- same as a Circuit Court of Appeals.
https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2021/ALKAZAHG_202000087_PUB.pdf
Very interesting. Does this mean that this decision can be used in civilian courts as a persuasive precident? It would not be binding, but it would be just as persuasive as any appeals court ruling in a circult other than the circuit where a case is being heard (i.e. 7th circuit decision is not binding, but can be persuasive in trial courts in other circuits -- only binding on trial courts in the 7th circuit)?
IANAL, so I don't know exactly... but if it were me on the stand, I'd sure be pointing it out to my lawyer along with every bit of supporting evidence from "the people".
No standing
Wait... So Trump and/or Q put this order in to eventually counter jab mandates? It in fact had nothing to do with bumpstocks so much as to be a ploy to get a ruling like this?
My take is the court ruled correctly with regard to bumpstocks.
But we can extrapolate the principle (something few people seem to be capable of doing these days) and use that principle on other issues, like vaxx mandates.
I don't think it was exactly intentional like that.
I think DJT left a lot of landmines and poison pills waiting for the courts to assert common sense solutions. It's a pleasant side effect that the fix can be applied to multiple cases of government overreach.
I think it is more simple than Trump setting up landmines and such.
If Trump/Q recognized that the men who issue judgements in military courts are those who understand and uphold the rule of law, then we will ultimately be in fine shape.
This ruling is a good indication that this is the case.
So what I'm saying is this means the beginning of the end for gov agencies making law. It's way more of a problem than you think based on the comments so far. This is a judgment directly against the existence of the deep state.