ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BUMP STOCK BAN CASE; JUDGES WAITING TO RETIRE

Oral Arguments in Bump Stock Ban Case

This week NCLA Litigation Counsel, Caleb Kruckenberg, presented oral arguments in Aposhian v. Barr before the full 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In this episode, Mark breaks down the argument that ATF's rule banning bump stocks exceeds the agency's legal authority. NCLA represents Mr. Aposhian in challenging this unconstitutional rewriting of a federal statute. The case is not about whether bump stocks should be banned. Instead, it is about whether ATF acted lawfully in how it banned them. NCLA contends that agencies may not rewrite any statutes, let alone federal criminal statutes.

Firearms instructor Clark Aposhian lawfully purchased a bump stock, but on March 26, 2019, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives adopted a regulation changing the statutory definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks. By rewriting the statute, ATF turned Mr. Aposhian and more than 500-thousand other law-abiding Americans into felons, subject to a 10-year prison sentence if they did not destroy or divest themselves of possession, even though owning a bump stock was lawful under the federal statute at the time of purchase.

Listen to oral arguments here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=400&v...​

Judges Waiting to Retire

Later in the episode, Vec leads a discussion about the pros/cons of judges waiting to retire until a president from their own party is elected. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns. Listen to hear how politics still has a role in the judicial branch, despite its apolitical structure.