12-28-2018, 08:08 PM
Contrary to '55's statement, I do not see where it has been proved "...that the shooter used bump stocks on the semi automatic rifles that he used..." that's a conclusion of a fact that I do not see being made by the agencies, at least in the stuff I have seen. ATF was not even allowed nor consulted on the bump-stock determination nor exam of the crime scene, if the suit is correct.
From what I read, the only conclusion made (and that was from public media, not from ATF or even FBI technical analysis) -- and correct me if I am wrong -- was that some firearms at the scene appeared (and that is an operative word for bureaucrats) to have bump-fire stocks attached. No analysis, no conclusions of fact, no ATF determinations, were made as to those being used, or that they in fact were bump-stocks, or that in fact, those bump-stocks used in the attack.
I'm not an especial fan of the bumpstock but do appreciate when an agency goes beyond its statutory authority, having been in a regulatory federal agency for some years before I retired. And this does appear to be a faulty reg to me. Any reg, if allowed to stand, becomes a precedent that could be upheld or extended in the future.
Additionally, having read the complaint, the only other thing I would add is that if no technical analysis was done (by recognized federal authority, ie ATF), and the regulatory analysis applied was faulty (improper/incomplete justification for overthrowing a 15-year precedent and rule), there is also a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (may not seem like a lot but this basis is the one that throws out a bunch of rulemakings every year). This complaint I think should be amended to add this APA violation to its complaints section and its claims for injunctive relief. Improperly constituted regs can be voided expressly because of this defect.
From what I read, the only conclusion made (and that was from public media, not from ATF or even FBI technical analysis) -- and correct me if I am wrong -- was that some firearms at the scene appeared (and that is an operative word for bureaucrats) to have bump-fire stocks attached. No analysis, no conclusions of fact, no ATF determinations, were made as to those being used, or that they in fact were bump-stocks, or that in fact, those bump-stocks used in the attack.
I'm not an especial fan of the bumpstock but do appreciate when an agency goes beyond its statutory authority, having been in a regulatory federal agency for some years before I retired. And this does appear to be a faulty reg to me. Any reg, if allowed to stand, becomes a precedent that could be upheld or extended in the future.
Additionally, having read the complaint, the only other thing I would add is that if no technical analysis was done (by recognized federal authority, ie ATF), and the regulatory analysis applied was faulty (improper/incomplete justification for overthrowing a 15-year precedent and rule), there is also a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (may not seem like a lot but this basis is the one that throws out a bunch of rulemakings every year). This complaint I think should be amended to add this APA violation to its complaints section and its claims for injunctive relief. Improperly constituted regs can be voided expressly because of this defect.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"