10th Circuit Court Issues Temporary Stay Against Bump Stock Ban

[Rucker61]

"Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a temporary stay (https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=STdInO2euBeiu4vx343uCxNB3DWo2GK9f3N-mm3igguJa5wmYKIVZ4wt-GJzeh-m1GD5CIJfmRGx6uo9O8vVagRm6a4_DLdwhpyd_PGaxUHb0ilzp 4iLXV-TPEPB-DBu) of the bump stock ban announced late last year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The stay only applies to NCLA?s client, W. Clark Aposhian, a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah who has challenged the ban in federal court. The stay prevents the enforcement of the bump stock ban against Mr. Aposhian while the Court considers his Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal (https://www.globenewswire.com/Tracker?data=RHHlAtLNiWqh6x5QFIAs8L64sLaXgitagyfWq EDkwu7ehMmgV1XOqVTA6XMt7r8rXTuS7pwWQCLdd1l_khyJjIS 0A8dIScJMZU-l6laB-CANQ1eka0ZCAkAc73rkdSKVTV7xpF1tqgx8TRBrvUixmGuaMHV rkSDQjSRe-scIxGUm1R3s0PCd9gkzDs__b1Ix8yAUBnPnazN51Z4rtGUB_WT EheD4H7-LbR9cO6W12fc=)."

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/22/1759094/0/en/NCLA-Wins-Temporary-Stay-of-Bump-Stock-Ban-from-U-S-Court-of-Appeals-for-the-Tenth-Circuit.html

[Bailey Guns]

That's good news. I hope the GOA lawsuit is successful in the 6th Circuit as well.

[.455_Hunter]

Why is the injunction only for him?

[Bailey Guns]

^^ Probably because of how and why it was filed and the legal questions to be answered (ie: was the process lawful and correct?). But that's a layman's guess on my part.

[00tec]

Previous ruling that upheld ban has been vacated. Going en banc

https://www.guns.com/news/bump-stock-ruling-vacated-to-be-reheard

[Bailey Guns]

I read this ruling and it went way over my head. I don't understand a lot of the legal technicalities they're discussing as relevant in this vacated ruling. It suddenly seems to have gotten very complicated. I guess we'll see what happens in time.

[FoxtArt]

So here's the lowdown in federal appeals.

1st, it is a panel of often three judges that issue an opinion. In this instant case, two of them agreed to uphold it, one (a Trump appointee) wrote what is called a dissenting or minority opinion. That doesn't change the outcome of the case, but it is often cited by people in responses to argument. Then, the individual sought what is called "en banc", or in layman's terms, asked for a full panel of the court to re-hear the same case. When they do, the full panel will issue an en banc ruling, either from scratch, or affirming the prior ruling, or potentially remanding select issues to a lower court (I assume this originated in Utah's district court but didn't check). While appeals courts are duty-bound to hear appeals from, in this case, the lower federal courts, Appeals courts are not obligated to re-hear a case en banc so it could be an encouraging sign. Better chances by far in the 10th COA than the CO Supreme Court (stacked).

If he's not satisfied with the en banc ruling, then he can appeal it to the US Supreme Court, which won't hear it because Kennedy's a pole smoking used douche-bag.

TLDR:
He filed in Utah, it shot him down (I'm assuming this)
He filed an appeal in the 10th COA, 2/3 judges ruled against him.
He sought an "en banc" re-hearing, asking the same 10th COA to hear the case with more judges. They accepted.
If he loses the en-banc hearing, the US Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, because Kennedy's spine dissolved into fetid rubbish which occupies the remainder of his body cavity., and the 10th COA en-banc ruling will most likely be published, precidential law affecting other cases.