Posted on Leave a comment

US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks are NOT Machine Guns

US Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has determined in a ruling that bump stocks are not machine guns in the case the United States v. Ali Alkazahg.

In an earlier judgment, Marine Corp Private Ali Akazahg was convicted for the possession of 2 “machine guns” in violation of articles 83, 107, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

It was ruled that these “machine guns” owned by Akazahg did not meet the federal definition of the machine gun.

“Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns”

The three-judge panel agreed with the arguments made by the defense and unanimously ruled that bump stocks do not meet the definition of a machine gun.

The panel referred to a case that anti-gun activists pressured Congress to act on following the mass shooting in Las Vegas where 60 died. A bill was advanced by Congress, “Closing the Bump Stock Loophole” seeking to treat bump stocks as machine guns.

However, it rightfully failed to pass either chamber of Congress.

I Support Donald Trump, But This is His Fault

In its ruling, the judges pointed out that following the bill’s failure in Congress, there was considerable political pressure on former President Trump to act against bump stocks.

The panel also said that they don’t believe that President Trump had the authority to make de facto law banning bump stocks.

Here’s a quote from the ruling:

[T]he President 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 judges have looked through the history of bump stocks and came to the conclusion that the ATF never considered bump stocks to be machine guns until Trump directed the bureau to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns.

The panel also inferred to the letter issued to William Akins in 2002 for his “Akins Accelerator” where the original version was used a spring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *