A class of Illinois firearms owners urge U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle to rule on several pending motions in a class action over bump stock devices, arguing that the case is at a standstill until rulings have been entered on the motions.
The class action seeks immunity for those who legally purchased bump stock devices prior to the passing of the “Final Rule,” which classifies the devices as machine guns and prohibits their possession.
On May 24, attorney Thomas Maag of Wood River filed a motion on behalf of plaintiff John Doe and class members, requesting a ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the defendants’ motion for leave to file notice of supplemental authority, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to cite supplemental authority, and a motion to lift stay on discovery.
He wrote that the defendants’ summary judgment motion has been pending for more than 14 months and has been fully briefed since June 2020.
“That nothing, either of substance, or form, can take place in this case, unless and until there is a ruling on these motions,” Maag wrote. “That it is understood, and appreciated, that, at least the summary judgment motion, is technical and complicated, however, a resolution of this case is needed, one way or the other.”
The government filed the motion for summary judgment on March 12, 2020, through attorney Eric Sakin.
Sakin wrote that bump stocks replace “the stock on an ordinary semi-automatic firearm in such a way as to allow a shooter to fire automatically with a single pull of the trigger, which is the hallmark of a machine gun under federal law.”
Sakin wrote that a series of previous classification letters by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives erroneously stated that some models of bump stocks were considered lawful firearm parts. A “Final Rule” was issued to correct the misclassifications and prohibit bump stock devices, the motion states.
The motion states that the Final Rule concludes that the Department of Justice lacks authority to grant an amnesty for bump stock devices and that the bump stocks lack markings and registration and transfer records, meaning the grandfathering provision does not apply.
“As the Department concluded, there is no approach that bifurcates bump stocks into ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ that it has authority to implement,” Sakin wrote.
The motion also states that the Final Rule does not violate due process and “does not accomplish a taking,” meaning compensation is not required.
Sakin wrote that the plaintiff rejects the validity of the Final Rule in his complaint, and therefore fails to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for compensation.
“As an initial matter, there is no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to compensation for the prohibition of his bump stocks unless he acknowledges that he is challenging a lawful action by the government, which is not the case here,” he wrote.
Doe filed the class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The suit was originally filed against former President Donald Trump, former US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, and Thomas Brandon, former acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). However, the named defendants are now listed as Joseph Biden, et. al.
The class action was filed in response to the Department of Justice’s Final Rule adopted in December 2018, retroactively redefining bump-fire stocks as machineguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968. Until the new rule was published, the ATF had classified bump-stocks as firearm “parts.”
The Final Rule extends the classification of “machine gun” to bump stock devices, which “permit a semiautomatic weapon to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger ‘by harnessing the recoil energy’ ‘so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,’” Yandle wrote.
According to the complaint, Bump-stocks attach to semiautomatic firearms in replacement of the standard stock and speed up their firing rate, similar to that of an automatic weapon. They are notoriously associated with the mass shooting at a Las Vegas country music festival in October 2017. A gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds from his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, killing 58 and injuring approximately 500 while using the device.
Maag wrote the DOJ officially announced that anyone who possesses the devices must either destroy them or surrender them to the ATF without compensation within a 90-day period, which is considered ATF’s Final Rule. Court records indicate that the 90-day period began to run on March 26 when the Final Rule went into effect.
Maag alleges the class would be irreparably harmed if the proposed regulations went into effect, “and thus, this court should enjoin same, pending a resolution on the merits, and/or remand to the administrative agency.”
According to the class action, Doe has been in possession of one or more bump-stock or bump firing devices since before Dec. 18, 2018. He alleges the devices were purchased or acquired in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and rulings in effect at the time they were purchased.
The suit states that Doe seeks to lawfully register the devices in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. If registration is legally impossible, then Doe seeks “just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, for a total regulatory and/or actual taking.”
Maag wrote that the defendants do not have the authority to institute an amnesty registration period under the Gun Control Act of 1968. He asks the court to find that an amnesty registration period would provide an immunity for registered firearms. He also asks the court to find that “defendants have abused their discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:19-cv-6