V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; DENIES Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction; and VACATES the Final Rule.

SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2024.

Originally Posted By nutter:
Why is this posted in cthtf?

Originally Posted By nutter:
Why is this posted in cthtf?

Originally Posted By sbhaven:

Oh I don't know. May because it affects people who obtained a SBR approval under the ATF forbearance period. There is language on those approved forms stating the following: "Approved with conditions - see conditions on the last page of PDF". With the last page Approval Conditions section stating; "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F". We don't know yet how ATF will respond and if they do what action they may take. Further those affected who put rifle stocks on their forbearance SBR approved "others" may want to pay attention just in case the ATF decides to revoke those forbearance approvals.

Originally Posted By HappyCamel:
Texas is supposed going to invade an annex CT so they can get our pizza, plus they have shitty range rules and wanted to learn how to do more freedom from us.

Originally Posted By nutter:
Since its covered in GD in multiple threads- it seems like a waste of site resources and ATF is ghey!

Originally Posted By sbhaven:

And how many take a dip in the GD swamp, would see those threads, and take the time read them.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:

And how many take a dip in the GD swamp, would see those threads, and take the time read them.

Originally Posted By edgephoto:



Not me. HTF is about all I look at on here. This forum has been dying a slow death for a few years now.

Originally Posted By sbhaven:

And how many take a dip in the GD swamp, would see those threads, and take the time read them.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Friday ruling to strike down a ban on bump stocks “effectively legalized machine guns on American streets,” according to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

“Bump stock devices are crime and carnage force-multipliers and they should be banned completely,” Blumenthal said in a written statement. “If the Court won’t allow law enforcement to take completely reasonable steps to take weapons of war off our streets, then Congress must act.”

Rep. Rose DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the ruling “is outrageous, dangerous, and will have deadly consequences,” adding that she’s working to pass the Closing the Bump Stock Loophole Act.

The 6-3 majority in Garland v. Cargill ends a nationwide ban on bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire hundreds of rounds a minute. The regulation was implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting that killed 58 people at a concert and wounded hundreds more.

The devices were classified as machine guns under both the Donald Trump and Joe Biden administrations. However, Justice Samuel Alito said that the legal definition went too far.

“There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns,” his opinion reads. “Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong also blasted the decision soon after it was made, emphasizing the state’s existing gun control laws.

“This disappointing decision is a serious threat to public safety,” Tong said in a written statement. “Bump stocks—however you define them—are dangerous. That’s why I wrote Connecticut’s bump stock ban as co-chair of the Judiciary Committee in 2018. This decision has zero impact on Connecticut’s law—which remains strong and enforceable. But what this means is that, once again, we’re back to a patchwork of state laws and porous interstate borders where federal leadership is sorely needed. I’m going to continue to do all that I can do advance and defend Connecticut’s lifesaving and necessary gun laws.”

Gov. Ned Lamont called the ruling “a terrible decision” and called on Congress to pass additional gun laws.

“Bump stocks essentially turn firearms into automatic weapons for the sole purpose of the mass killings of human beings,” he said in a written statement. “There is no civilian or self-defense purpose for these devices.”

Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz had similar words, additionally highlighting that the survivors of the Sandy Hook tragedy graduated high school this week.

“Far too many lives have been lost to senseless gun violence, yet gun manufacturers are taking steps every day to adapt their weapons to court decisions and existing loopholes in state laws – and tragically, to make their weapons even deadlier,” she wrote. “As the Sandy Hook Elementary survivors just marked their high school graduation, it is imperative that our nation stop this epidemic. Gun violence is a public health crisis that requires us to act and fight with all our might. Governor Lamont and I remain committed to the idea that one incident of gun violence is too many and will continue to ensure that Connecticut is a leader on passing comprehensive, common-sense gun safety legislation. We call on Congress to join us in those efforts.”

Po Murray, chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance, said the decision was “a significant setback in our ongoing efforts to enhance public safety and reduce gun violence in our communities.”

“We are profoundly disheartened by the Supreme Court’s ruling on bump stocks,” Murray wrote. “This decision not only disregards the deadly potential of these devices but also jeopardizes the safety of our communities. Bump stocks serve no purpose other than to transform semi-automatic weapons into instruments of mass destruction.”