bump fire stock ban
Dan Z for TTAG

By Kevin McGill, AP

A Trump administration ban on bump stocks — devices that enable a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an initial trigger pull — was struck down Friday by a federal appeals court in New Orleans.

The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.

The decision doesn’t have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.

The case was somewhat unique because the issue involves not the Second Amendment but the interpretation of federal statutes. Opponents of the ban argued that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now being defended by the Biden administration.

“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the lead majority opinion.

The court found that the definition of a machinegun — which is set out in two different federal statutes — “does not apply to bump stocks.”

The ban had survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the federal circuit court in Washington. A panel of three judges at the 5th Circuit also issued a ruling in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court decision by a Texas federal judge. But the full New Orleans-based court voted to reconsider the case. Arguments were heard Sept. 13.

The full appeals court Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They had argued that the trigger itself functions multiple times when a bump stock is used, so therefore bump stock weapons do not qualify as machine guns under federal law. They point to language in the law that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times with a “single function of the trigger.”

Most of the majority also agreed that if the law is ambiguous, it’s up to Congress to address the issue under a court doctrine known as “lenity.”

In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don’t fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.

Richard Samp, who argued against the rule on behalf of a Texas gun owner, said he was pleased with Friday’s ruling and had expected it after the September arguments.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on Friday evening.

Judges ruling against the ban were Elrod, Priscilla Richman, Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, Carl Stewart, Leslie Southwick, Catharina Haynes, Don Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt, Cory Wilson and Andrew Oldham. All but Stewart are Republican appointees to the appeals court.

Higginson’s dissent was joined by judges James Dennis and James Graves. The case was argued before Judge Dana Douglas, a recent appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, joined the 5th Circuit.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

  1. Any law, to be an effective tool of government, must, by nature, be ambiguous. Otherwise, you get a whole lotta freedom going on out there.

      • Either the page has been taken down already, or pub access is being denied. All I get after multiple attempts is a:

        Object not found!

        The requested URL was not found on this server currently. If you entered the URL manually please check your spelling and try again.

        Error 404

    • I’m still waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that bump stocks were even used during the Route 91 massacre. The videos (posted directly via cell phone by eye rhythmic rate of fire too consistent for me to believe it was bump stock usage.

      Somebody please explain the second set of automatic-fire muzzle flashes I saw in one of the videos, coming from a few floors below the alleged “lone wolf” gunman.

      • “Somebody please explain the second set of automatic-fire muzzle flashes I saw in one of the videos, coming from a few floors below the alleged “lone wolf” gunman.”

        Believe only half of what you hear, and none of what you see.

  2. I get the feeling this is not ‘good news’.

    This ruling will likely be a vehicle for banning semi-autos.

    • “This ruling will likely be a vehicle for banning semi-autos.”

      The good news is, since the SCotUS has already ruled in ‘Heller’ that ‘..weapons in common use” are expressly protected by the 2A, and cannot be banned.

      The bad news is, there’s nothing stopping a Leftist Scum ™-controlled Supreme Court can just as easily rule that they can be added to the NFA, with all the bullshit that entails.

      The ‘Heller’ through ‘Bruin’ watershed rulings are very big deals, but we lose all of that when the Leftist Scum ™ regains control of the SCotUS in the future… 🙁

      • The better news is that the bATFeces recent rule on PMF’s admitted that AyR’s are common use. Shooting themselves joyously in the foot on the proposed AWB’s.

        Oooppsssssies. XD

    • That won’t fly post Bruen. Semiauto long guns were available in the tme before our war for independence from Britain At least one model I know of could hold forty rounds in the internal magazine and fire them in rapid succession one round with each pull of the trigger, the weapon being ready to fire the next one very quickly after firing the previous round by doing nothing more than pulling the trigger again. This gun was available, though rather dearly so, in the early 1770s before Lexington and Concord. The ruling in Bruen declared that if something was in existence prior to the Revolution and Constitution it has to be considered as in common use and thus protected by that pesky Secind Artile of Ammendment.

    • No, its different. This copy-n-paste from the AP leaves some information out. The argument was over the action of the trigger.

      Basically; The government says the trigger operation is pulled and stays back and shots continue to be fired with a single trigger pull – in other words the ATF definition of machine gun they argued. The other side argued that the trigger does in fact move and function in a semi-auto mode as intended, its just has constant pressure on the trigger so it fires sooner (“rapidly”) at reset – which is not the ATF definition of machine gun.

      here is something which states it better > https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/06/appeals-court-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-00076867 .

      (excerpt from the link)

      “Bump stocks harness the recoil energy of a semiautomatic firearm so that a trigger “resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” according to the ATF. A shooter must maintain constant forward pressure on the weapon with the non-shooting hand, and constant pressure on the trigger with the trigger finger, according to court records.

      But the full appeals court Friday sided with opponents of the ATF rule. They argued that the trigger itself functions multiple times when a bump stock is used, so therefore bump stock weapons do not qualify as machine guns under federal law. They point to language in the law that defines a machine gun as one that fires multiple times with a ‘single function of the trigger.’

      ‘The trigger is going to function multiple times,’ Richard Samp, arguing for a Texas gun owner, told the 5th Circuit judges at the Sept. 13 hearing.

      U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Mark Stern said the key is the action of the shooter.

      ‘You only have to do one thing,” Stern told the judges. “Your trigger finger isn’t doing anything other than sitting still.’ ”

      And here is Mark Smith, an attorney on the SCOTUS bar giving his take on it …. MORE MAJOR 2A NEWS: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN BUMP STOCK BAN. Next Stop U.S. Supreme Court.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWGHqr2f0s

      • here is the decision > https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf

        Basically, the 5th circuit has ruled the ATF did not have the legal authority to define bump stocks as machine guns

        The ATF for over a decade maintained that bump stocks were not machine guns and even issued interpretation letters to that effect to the public. And a plain reading of the statutory language in consideration of the actual function of a ‘bump- stock’, says a ‘bump stock’ is not a machine gun as defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. Then suddenly, after that shooting, ‘bump stocks’ are banned as machine guns using the same statutory language that says they are not machine guns.

        The ruling at the link does a pretty good job of going into the details so give it a read.

        Its not strictly a 2A case, but rather more of one focused on the statutory language definition in relation to the reality of how the trigger actually functions with a bump stock which is not machine gun like as in the statutory language.

        • “The ATF for over a decade maintained that bump stocks were not machine guns“

          Yes, Obama/Biden’s ATF ruled bump stocks were indeed illegal.

          Sadly, trump’s ATF make short work of the freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration.

        • @Miner49er

          “Yes, Obama/Biden’s ATF ruled bump stocks were indeed illegal.”

          In proper context which you don’t know anything about, No. The ATF never had the legal authority to do that based upon the statutory language and they didn’t. So No, the ATF did not rule that “bump stocks were indeed illegal” – plus the ATF does not have authority to ‘rule’ something illegal, they are not a court or congress

          Keep out of discussion for which you have no understanding of the subject matter.

          “Sadly, trump’s ATF make short work of the freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration.”

          And what the heck is this? In one sentence you say that “Obama/Biden’s ATF ruled bump stocks were indeed illegal” then you turn around an contradict your own statement with “Sadly, trump’s ATF make short work of the freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration.”

          There was no “freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration” in the context of ‘bump stocks’.

          Are you off your med’s again?

          Learn what ‘context’ means and how to use it instead of just spewing out ignorant and delusion garbage for subjects you know nothing about.

        • .40 cal,

          “Keep out of discussion for which you have no understanding of the subject matter.”

          So, what you’re saying is that MinorLiar should keep out of ANY discussion on this site?? I concur. He’s an ignorant, opinionated @$$clown – and the fervency of his opinions is in adverse relationship to his actual knowledge about the subject under discussion. And even at that, he is noticeably more sane than dacian the demented.

        • @Miner49er

          Plus…

          “… freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration.”

          When the first bump stock came across Rick Vasquez’s desk at the ATF in 2010, he knew that his evaluation would take longer than usual. But after months of testing the bump stock and studying the law, the ATF determined the bump stock did not make a gun fully automatic (a machine gun), because the trigger of a rifle equipped with the bump stock device still had to be engaged every time the weapon fired.

          “We could not find a way to classify it as a machine gun,” Vasquez said. No matter how hard they tried to do their masters bidding. Obama who wanted to ban bump stocks, and the civilian grade semi-auto AR-15’s by the way just like every democrat since 1994 – its why the ATF looked at bump stocks to begin with, ’cause Obama told them to do it so he could ban them if the ATF said they were machine guns. But using the actual law and testing the ATF could not justify that a bump stock made the semi-auto civilian grade AR-15 a machine gun so they did not get banned back then and Obama was not willing to alienate pro-gun voters and the pro-gun republicans that were willing to work with the democrats on some of his stuff so he did not push it. But in reality Obama really wanted to ban them, and we know that Biden wants to ban them and has said so.

          There was no “freedom secured by the Obama/Biden administration” in relation to bump stocks. You statement is 100% false.

          You are so full of crap I can smell it from here.

    • Maybe, but the decision will more likely lead to defining an “MG” as any device enabling a threshold rate of fire. A fast trigger finger will then require BATF registration.

      • “A fast trigger finger will then require BATF registration.”

        Jerry Miculek’s finger will be “A registered weapon”? 😉

        • No, Jerry is okay, since he is pre 1986. His daughter, who is almost as fast as Jerry is, is another story. Not only are Jerry and his wife guilty of illegally manufacturing a full -auto daughter, the doctor who delivered her would have had to be an FFL/SOT, and after waiting for all of the required paperwork, the baby wouldnt have been delivered until around her second birthday. I suggest that they just give the ATF the finger. Come on Lena, just give them the finger.

      • “A fast trigger finger will then require BATF registration.”

        As will string, rubberbands, and pants with beltloops.

  3. one guy say it’s a pig, everyone says its’ a pig, the other guys across the street says it’s a skunk, but they won’t budge about saying it’s a skunk, It doesn’t stink like a skunk, doesn’t look like a skunk but they totally believe it’s a skunk.

  4. Funny how the article makes a point out of the fact that 12/13 of the majority were GOP appointed, without saying a word about the fact that 3/3 of the were Clinton and Obama appointees.

    And it fails to mention that the ATF determined bump stocks were not NFA items before Donald J Trump ordered the ATF to change its mind on the subject.

    • “…the ATF determined bump stocks were not NFA items before Donald J Trump ordered the ATF to change its mind on the subject.”

      Yeah, well, the very same BATF changed their minds and said pistol braces were short-barreled rifles, after they said earlier that they were not…

      • Pistol Braces…
        Another arbitrary and capricious reversal of a previous correct interpretation of law.

        How can anybody not see that an agency is self-discrediting when it engages in “it was legal until it wasn’t, and no the law didn’t change, but we changed it because we wanted to”?

        • They suffer from the same insanity as the rest of the left and the deep state. I get into arguments at work with our infection control person because she contradicts herself and makes statements that don’t make any logical sense and aren’t internally consistent.

          I used to laugh when Michael Savage would say “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” No I see that it really is. These people are insane.

        • “They suffer from the same insanity as the rest of the left”

          It was trumps ATF appointees who reversed the bump stocks approval, and it was trumps ATF appointees who began the prohibition process for pistol braces after the Obama/Biden ATF had approved them.

        • MinorLiar,

          “it was trumps ATF appointees who began the prohibition process for pistol braces after the Obama/Biden ATF had approved them.”

          Now, @$$clown, whose ATF issued the final regulation??? Are you just incapable of truth, if there is a partisan issue at stake?? Why, YES, yes you are.

        • Minor just needs to be ignored, or laughed at.

          He only posts content here that demonizes good because it falls short of perfection.

          Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows which political party wants an outright BAN on ALL semi-auto firearms. The Ds have come out and admitted it.

          The Rs may not be the solution to every problem, but we all know the Ds are the root cause of nearly EVERY PROBLEM.

          Utopia is unachievable, hence the root of the word, NOWHERE! The term was used to describe an unachievable society of perfection. Humans are flawed/imperfect, so it’s never going to happen.
          POS ‘higher education’ scum brainwash the impressionable young into thinking Utopia is achievable in order to advance horrible and destructive policies.

          Minor is a card carrying member of the POS scum brigade.

        • James,
          “The Rs may not be the solution to every problem, but we all know the Ds are the root cause of nearly EVERY PROBLEM.”
          Spot on!

  5. POTUS DJT was between a rock and a hard spot, either let congress take the lead and get boxed into signing into law some who knows what bucket of congressional manure or zero in on Bumb stock contraptions. It was not as cut and dry as the tantrum throwing bump stock mob made it out to be.

    • It’s pretty F’ing cut and dry; do the right thing. Let congress do what it wants. Don’t sign any law that violates people’s rights. I voted for the man twice but he was not great. His cult is as whacky as the cults of Lincoln and Reagan.

      • Congress could have overridden Trump’s veto. They did that once. It’s best not to play with fire. Hopefully the courts will set this right, and the government will pay for damages inflicted.

  6. ” “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.”

    Strangely enough, Higginson has stated the purpose of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Especially the Bill of Rights. Government was meant to be hobbled, and citizens empowered, when there is a difference of opinion.

    • It’s amazing how closely Higginson paraphrased the “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” standard while claiming it’s a bad thing.

    • “Government was meant to be hobbled, and citizens empowered,”

      Mega dittos!

      The failing of the people of the nation is that your statement is not being taught in the homes, the schools, the media.

  7. after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017.

    No such thing happened this way. That :lone gunman” had plenty of help WHY did FedGov confiscate every phone and audiorecording device they could bribe or cajole or threaten out of anyone’s hands download the desired files, then wipe them clean before returning them IF they did return them at all? Simple… Those recordings clearly show rounds fired from multiple weapons in widely separate areas. along with rates of fire clearly from full auto weapons and NOT the erratic shot patterns of rifles with bump stocks. Eyewitness reports back this up. My own ear deectd several instances of varying types of weapons fired that clearly were NOT bumpstock fired weapons.
    Further I have seen images taken in the area where the guns were found along with the supposed dead body of the accused perp. Yes there were significant numbers of various weapons in what is alledged to have been the supposed killer’s “perch”. There WERE indeed long guns portrayed with bump stocks attached. FBI had secured the supposed site, BATF wanted to come in and perform various types of forensic examinations including whether any of the bump stock equipped weapons had actually been fired..BATF were denied access, and to this day have not been allowed to examine or test any of the weapons.Further it is my nderstanding that FBI have never released any of the recovered projectiles nor the results of any balllistics or forensics examination of them. Considering the large number of rounds fired and supposedly recovered, simple micro-examination of the recovered projectiles could/should have been done and those patterns compared with test fired rounds from the bump stock equipped weapons. NONE of this has been done. Thus there is NO PROOF or even evidence supporting allegations that any of the bump stock equipped rifles had fired even one round during the whole event. So based on evidence I’ve seen to this point in time there exists NO PROOF that would stand up under cross-ex to support the premise that even one of the multiple bump stock fitted rifles had been fired that night.
    VERY shoddy “investigation”

    • “BATF wanted to come in and perform various types of forensic examinations including whether any of the bump stock equipped weapons had actually been fired..BATF were denied access, and to this day have not been allowed to examine or test any of the weapons.”

      That right there is enough to have me not believe the official line. Over the last 5 or so years we have seen a lot of “conspiracy theories” come true. Today if I see anything but complete transparency I suspect foul play.

      • Agreed. They don’t have our best interest in mind, ever. No one should trust them after everything we’ve seen in the past few years.

    • “Those recordings clearly show rounds fired from multiple weapons in widely separate areas“

      The only way you could know what is on those recordings is by viewing/listening to them, so please share with us the source of those recordings so we may also view/hear them.

      Or is your post just irresponsible speculation, based on nothing but your own private agenda…

      • The videos were all taken down and confiscated. I can’t share the ones I downloaded before they got censored by the man, because this isn’t a file sharing service.
        But the whole thing stinks. No one who has put more than 5 rounds through a bump-stock thinks that those shots were possible. Add laughably unreliable Surefire coffin mags to finicky bumpstocks, and there is just no way you get the even, long, consistent shot strings that both the audio and flash reports show in the video. Having experience with automatic weapons, it is clear to me that whatever the terrorists used was belt fed and full auto.
        60 years ago, the CIA assassinated a sitting president after he refused to sign off on false-flag operations against American citizens to garner support for wars against communism. You think the .gov has grown a conscience since then?

      • MINOR Miner49er, how about that incident in Nevada where a man had multiple firearms in his hotel room and shot up the street? Psst! No “bump stocks” were involved?

    • Not a shoddy investigation.
      A huge coverup or we wouldn’t have lingering questions. Just like JFK’s assassination.

  8. Show me proof the gunman used bumpstocks and not the full auto that was present
    Bad as the media round here

    • The article is identified as an AP release, and not TTAG content, at the top.
      But yeah, absolutely no way bump stocks were used. Whatever was used was belt-fed.

  9. here is the decision > https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf

    Basically, the 5th circuit has ruled the ATF did not have the legal authority to define bump stocks as machine guns

    The ATF for over a decade maintained that bump stocks were not machine guns and even issued interpretation letters to that effect to the public. And a plain reading of the statutory language in consideration of the actual function of a ‘bump- stock’, says a ‘bump stock’ is not a machine gun as defined in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. Then suddenly, after that shooting, ‘bump stocks’ are banned as machine guns using the same statutory language that basically says they are not machine guns.

    The ruling at the link does a pretty good job of going into the details so give it a read.

    Its not strictly a 2A case, but rather more of one focused on the statutory language definition in relation to the reality of how the trigger actually functions with a bump stock which is not machine gun like as in the statutory language.

  10. An ambiguous statute shouldn’t ever stand. Prosecuting somebody on the basis of nonsense like “I know it when I see it” or “because I said so” is psycho, looney, dystopic, Kafka stuff.

    • “An ambiguous statute shouldn’t ever stand.”

      <i“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

      We have been living the world of Alice since the “Cheveron deferrence” was invented.

  11. WATCH Masked Robber With A Toy Gun in Houston Restaurant Shot By Armed Citizen, Is It Justified? .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPQ4-k54CcE

    From the video, the bad guy with the ‘toy’ gun is pointing his ‘toy’ gun at the guy in the back booth who has his hands up (in response). The guy in the booth near the bad guy (on the bad guys left – he is a little past they booth and is facing the guy in the back booth and doesn’t see the guy in the booth next to him) – the guy in that booth draws and shoots the bad guy while the bad guy is pointing his ‘toy’ gun at the guy in the back booth with his hands raised.

    Basically; The exit door is also in that direction of the guy in the booth (near the door) with his hands up. So the argument goes that it seems the bad guy was leaving so some people don’t think its a clear clean case of defense (that its not a ‘good’ shoot). And on the other side of the argument is the fact that the ‘toy’ gun is indistinguishable from a real gun and the guy in the booth (near the door – raised hands) is obviously thinking its a real gun (else why act to raise hands unless you think the threat is real?) thus is justified to be in fear and the ‘defender’ in the booth that draws and shoots also thinks its a real gun and can see the guy in the back booth raised hands justifying there was a ‘fear’ of an imminent deadly force threat to life.

    Personally; I don’t know what was going through the bad guys mind, if he was leaving or not. But if he was leaving why bother to keep pointing the gun (the guy in the back booth with raised hands and the bad guy with his arm up gun in hand pointing in that guys direction).

    I can kinda understand the ‘bad guy was leaving’ thing because the door was in the direction he was heading – so I can understand the less ‘inclusive of everything’ argument here. But, when you include the larger picture I think that argument fails.

    From the information I can see (the news story video > https://www.abc10.com/article/news/crime/taqueria-robbery-shooting-houston/285-5dceec19-9c07-444c-b211-4c584738e0fa ) it appears the bad guy was moving back and forth from the door to further into the restaurant to cover all the patrons with waving his ‘toy’ gun around, so his actions at pointing his ‘toy’ gun and moving back and forth at the guy in the booth near the door is consistent with a continuation of that robbery and the willingness to use (threaten) deadly force to carry out the crime. You don’t know if its a ‘toy’ or not. In over 85% of robberies the bad guys still ‘physically injure (to some degree) or kill’ the victim even if they comply, that’s simply how it is today and its no longer ‘reliable’ (and really never was) that compliance will give you the greater chance of survival no matter what dacian says with his bogus studies say.

    In my opinion, the ‘defender’ in the booth had a justifiable reason to reasonably believe the ‘toy’ gun was real and the bad guy would use it and lives were in imminent danger. So in my opinion, based upon the video, the ‘defender’ acted with legally justifiable use of deadly force to defend not only himself but others as well.

    The act of compliance-will-be-success-for-survival is a false concept based on perception and not fact and never was based upon fact even back when it still kinda worked to avoid physical harm. Its based purely upon anecdotal as related by victims. In reality, the perception of victims under stress ignores, at a minimum, smaller physical injury and also ignores the fact that the fear its self causes permanent injury psychologically and emotionally at a minimum – so even at a very minimum, even if there was no ‘physical injury’ there is still harm inflicted if one complies. Plus in robberies of female victims back when this was still kinda seemed to be working, most ended up sexually molested in some manner or raped and did not report that in their anecdotal reporting for the various study’s because of the shame and victimization they felt and fear they bad guy would come back if they disclosed it. Plus, even back when it sort of seemed to work there were still a large percentage of victims that were still physically harmed or killed. It became a ‘society’; thing because the ‘authorities’ were pushing it as a means to provide hope that one could survive, and some people did but a lot didn’t either.

    So the studies since then concentrated on those that did survive, but mostly ignored those that did not survive unharmed, and some of their study participants flat out lied and said no harm happened because they were afraid the bad guy would come back if they disclosed details like that. And then anti-gun studies came along and picked that up and presented them as fact but its just illusion because they biased their data by concentrating on survivors and excluding others, and they left out, once again what the studies before had left out and that was causality. Then Kleck came along with his study and looked at all the things those studies had purposely excluded.

    Kleck did the definitive authoritative study on this – and although there are those who have tried to debunk his study there has never been one actually successful with actual data including causality (the causality factors are what determines if the conclusion is true or not – its why anti-gun studies leave it out so their study’s will appear valid but they really aren’t because if they include the causality factors it shows their conclusions to be false.). The Kleck study is still used by the DOJ today.

    According to Kleck’s “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” – the leading authority on the subject of compliance and referenced by the DOJ:

    1. Any form of resistance, except with firearm, carries with it an injury rate of 52%.

    2. Resistance with a firearm carried with it the risk of injury of 17%, but use of a firearm early in an encounter carries with it a risk of injury of 6%.

    Overall, in Kleck, you have a minimum of a 25% chance of being injured if you comply, but you are 4 time less likely to be injured if you have your firearm and are prepared to use it.

    Take away here summary: compliance may still result in injury (which includes death), resistance without a firearm carries a 52% chance of injury (which includes death), resistance with a firearm lowers chance of injury (which includes death) to 17%, resistance with a firearm early in the encounter further lowers risk of injury (which includes death) to 6%

    If you are armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 25%?
    if you are not armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 52%?

    Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. But if you want, you can roll the dice and take the chance of being a good-n-dead witness.

    • to Booger Brain

      Quote————–Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. ————quote

      More complete horseshit and lies. Studies done by Harvard University counted up deaths in armed resistance to robbery and the most people who died were people who resisted with gun fire rather than give in to the robber.

      While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.

      https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html

      Here is another very lengthy in depth study (not the Harvard).
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

      Another
      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

      And the shooter in this video can expect to spend at least $200,000 trying to defend himself in court over a wrongful death lawsuit which is a certainty to happen. Even if he wins he will be bankrupt for the rest of his life. Was it worth it? No of course it was not.

      And of course if the shooter had accidentally hit any innocent people which could easily have happened he would have had a one way trip to jail for a long, long time.

      • @dacian

        I knew you would be along with your debunked crap, confirmation bias, and ignorance on this subject. You never fail to be a source of amusement with your ignorance.

        • @dacian

          “More complete horseshit and lies. Studies done by Harvard University counted up deaths in armed resistance to robbery and the most people who died were people who resisted with gun fire rather than give in to the robber.

          While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.”

          blah blah blah again…

          Tell ya what… take a look at your “Harvard University” and Chicago and NCBI study and show me where exactly it shows the data from the firearm resistance that was successful so that the victims did not suffer any physical harm and where that data is included exactly.

          Wait… I’ll save ya some time. Its not in there. They cherry picked data that only supported the pre-determined conclusion they wanted to reach. You don’t see the problem with this do you.

          these were all studies funded by anti-gun interests and each one has been debunked several times.

          Your new york times article is from 1984 and hasn’t been representative of today’s world since 1986. Plus the study it cites didn’t actually use its claimed 1,000 and the only thing they used was robberies, and purposely excluded other violent crimes. You don’t see a problem with this either do you.

          the problem is this: They look at a small microcosm, expand it out like its statistically significant, when in reality its statistically insignificant without using the broad spectrum of violent crime, then they reach conclusions that are wrong because they purposely excluded data by cherry picking data that only supported the pre-determined conclusion, plus they left out causality factors.

          Klecks study didn’t do that. He used a broad spectrum and applied causality that these others you post left out on purpose. Its why his study has never been debunked, because when you apply causality (as its suppose to be included in such studies) it proves the data and conclusions are correct.

      • dacian the demented dips***,

        Tell us you know nothing about statistics or data analysis without SAYING you know nothing about statistics or data analysis. Oops, you just did. We’ve debunked both your idiot, worthless, biased “study” AND your idiot “interpretation” of it so often, I refuse to repeat that debunking, since you are nothing by a demented, lying Leftist/fascist troll.

        “Harvard study”, indeed. So, what was your degree in, dacian the uneducated? A GED in underwater basket weaving??

        • Hey, make fun of his degree all you want, but it did have practical applications for his job as a skin-diver for Roto-Rooter… which also provided him with the skill of swimming in shit. Obviously, he brings his work home with him.

      • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. There are thousands of incidents where the good guy with a gun overcame the bad guys. Your “study” cherry picks to come to the conclusion it made before they even did their “study”.

      • If guns are so useless for defending oneself from an ambush situation, Dacian, perhaps you would be in favour of disarming our police, our bodyguards, and the secret service. Would save a lot of money. How about it Dacian?

  12. Courts have no power to force Biden or his lakey’s the ATF to do anything they do not want to do so no matter how the courts rule there will not be any bump stock sales as long as Biden is in power and yes they will continue to arrest people they find that have bump stocks in their possession. This is how the real world works. He who controls the Gestapo rules, law or no law.

    If you think I am joking remember when the ATF banned a piece of empty leather called a wallet holster. Now try and tell me the ATF will not find a way to keep the bump stock ban law.

    • And these are the people you want to have authority over who gets a gun.

      You are beyond mentally ill.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. Here we go again. You just can’t help it but try to exert your control over the people.

    • “Courts have no power to force Biden”

      Read that carefully again Dacian.

      If they can’t force a president, then they certainly can’t force anyone else either.

      Or is Dacian practically admitting he supports a dictatorship through mob rule Or by strongman/woman? Does Dacian think only members of The Party be above the law?

      Going by his prior responses, I wouldn’t be surprised either way.

      Free for all time I suppose. Who wants a select fire 10.5 HK416?

  13. Property rights are what the United States was founded on. If you as a law abiding citizen don’t have property rights then you don’t have America.

    I hope Slidefire can sue the government for the illegal confiscation of private property. And without any compensation.

  17. The problem here really has nothing to do with the 2A. Although the ATF is the worst offender when it comes to this problem.

    In a nutshell, a company went to the appropriate Governmental authority and got written confirmation that the item in question was legal, multiple times.

    That company then sold tens of thousands of these items over the course of almost 10 years to people and built a nice business.

    Then that same Government changed its mind and demands that the customers destroy their own property and that the company stop selling its products. This Government demands this compliance with ZERO compensation to the customers or the manufacturer.

    This represents an unConstitutional “takings” based on most 5A interpretations. I honestly believe that it would stand if they paid everyone who bought one $300 for turning it in.

    In short, Government can’t explicitly say something is legal and then arbitrarily, without any due process of law, declare it to be illegal and not compensate people for their loss of property.

    Imagine if tomorrow Government declared gasoline powered cars illegal and told you that you had to turn it in with no compensation. That would never fly, and neither should this.

    • “This represents an unConstitutional “takings” based on most 5A interpretations.”

      For over 200yrs prior to “Prohibition”, buying, selling, possessing, drinking alcoholic beverages was legal. Then government, via constitutional amendment declared it wasn’t, and “booze” was contraband.

      Confiscating and destroying contraband is not a “taking”. Bumpstocks were declared contrabad, by the federal government. Demand to destroy, or turn-in contraband, without compensation, is not a taking.

      • When the contraband designation is applied in error does that logic hold or can recompense be sought?

        • “When the contraband designation is applied in error does that logic hold or can recompense be sought?”

          Not a lawyer, here.

          Would think that it would first be necessary to win a lawsuit against whichever govt agency declared something “contraband”. After that, thinking another suit might be required in order to gain compensation. Might be possible to roll both complaints into a single suit.

          We, the people who delegated authority to government, cannot individually decide what is legal/illegal. Only government can make that determination.

        • Seems as the 5rh circuit plays out with it’s unintended consequences that may be something to explore.

    • To Don

      Don’t laugh that day is coming when gas cars will become illegal on the road and no you will not get any compensation.

      • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, you may well be right, except if they do, we will have to go back to the horse and buggy. It’s a sure thing, electric cars sure aren’t ready “for prime time”.

    • joe john, Lick your own boots. So what? Everyone, even you are entitled to an opinion.

    • “All the Trump boot lickers forgot all about this one.”

      You have data to support the proposition?

Comments are closed.