Today, our firm filed an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari challenging the ATF’s reclassification of bumpstocks as machineguns. Our amicus brief explained that the bumpstock ban was a reversal of position for the ATF, and was not based on new analysis, but rather at the direction of the President. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion below was based on marketing materials by bumpstock manufacturers, not legal definitions, and also relied on some perception of congressional concern. We explained that the government justifies the bumpstock ban based on a mass shooting in Las Vegas, but has not provided evidence that bumpstocks were actually used in that shooting. Our brief also argued that the statutory definitions of “machinegun” are unambiguous, and thus that the D.C. Circuit was incorrect in concluding that the bumpstock rule was the “best construction” of the statute.
