I recently saw a T-shirt that said that “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.” Based on the “work” that the ATF does (especially when people like David Chipman were considered for heading up the agency), I think that I tend to agree with that idea.

Even under Presidential administrations that were more pro-2A friendly than Democrat administrations, the ATF tends to overstep the boundaries of the Constitution and to simply be another government force to take away the rights of law-abiding Americans. A perfect example of that is the bump stock ban that went into effective during Donald Trump’s administration.

But, now, that ban has had its day in court, and it didn’t go in favor of the ATF. Zachary Stieber writes,


The U.S. government was wrong when it said a ban on machine guns applied to bump stocks, a federal court ruled on Jan. 6.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in 2018 claimed that two laws banning machine guns meant bump stocks were illegal, reversing its earlier position. The move, backed by then-President Donald Trump, came after a man carried out a mass shooting in Las Vegas, using bump stocks to fire more rapidly.

Michael Cargill, a Texas resident who had to surrender bump stocks due to the reversal, sued in 2019, arguing that the ATF and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Justice, violated the Constitution by usurping the role of Congress in defining the machine gun ban as extending to bump stocks.

“Cargill is correct. 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 ‘machine gun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in its new ruling.

This is exactly the right ruling for this case.

Bump stocks very simply do not meet the definition of a machine gun, and the ATF stepped across the line with that rule. They were wrong, and they didn’t have the authority to ban bump stocks.

Let’s hope that we continue to see more court wins like this supporting our 2A rights.



  1. We don’t need the ATF, IRS, Dept. of Education and who knows what else they waste our money on. Each state should take care of many of these chores. And we don’t need all these people with no common sense. Thanks for letting me rant.

    • You are correct. I would rather move to a state with morals than live in a federal union of states with no morality or the right to live with like minded people that agree with me. I LOVE Sarah Sanders and am sure a lot of people would like to live in Arkansas now, besides the great outdoors recreation and lower costs of living.

  2. I am sure many hunters and gun owners who like to practice at the range for fun bought one of these cheap bumpstocks as a gimmick to have fun with and see if it could even work at all for them. They just went from felons under the stupidest thing Trump ever went along with, besides the fake CDC and FDA (HHS) shutdowns for covid for no logical reason besides abusive government control, to innocent law abiding honest citizens in the instant the judge ruled the ATF negligent. This is just another reason to hide your private life from the invasive federal government, and most likely your wife, unless you enjoy getting your ass chewed out regularly.

  3. The ATF has stepped across the line on many occasions. It is time to hold those Politicians and elected Officials who violate our second amendment rights monetarily responsible for there actions. This includes suing politicians who use public funds to prosecute us for exercising our constitutional rights while exercising there non controllable or legally effected rights???

  4. So, someone knows the law and our rights to be ours. Must keep uniting to preserve our rights from the constant tyranny. Laws need to be passed to prosecute tyrants from dismantling our rights. Prison terms imposed. Need to really investigate each politician before voting for them. Always ask questions? And get answers.

  5. Since governments of all kinds in the US find ways to never reimburse people whose property was taken from him, resulting in bankruptcy and extreme loss, I was wondering if Mr. Michael Cargill can now be reimbursed for his loss due to government ineptitude and over reach? If not, can we pass some laws that allow for such reimbursement or return of goods taken illegally, on the local, state, and federal level?

Comments are closed.