Last October, a federal court held that the government had the power to take the property without compensation.

The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, which takes issue with how government regulators moved to outlaw the devices in 2018. petition and argued that rehearing is unwarranted. 3 0 endstream endobj 505 0 obj <>stream <> x�+� � | *Ӿ�������s�'�N���@}`*4z�M�nI��)�w޼8�.z�ö/�����R��OD6r����f8��a���VZ�s� �*Mʎ�6��is���Fă����`�b���[3�"� ��V�wꎄ;:��Y�e�҉X��h쐰G*�X�̊�K���#�߫������%W�ϥ�A�j^�]��ؼs�AR��`�lM��#����Ё�47t�҃�.���ƽ̑����cۨ���[��Z�CI1�7B��NWW'�����]�����~`�I�?K��� %%+ -dEmbedAllFonts=true -dSubsetFonts=true -dCompressFonts=true -dNOPAUSE -dQUIET -dBATCH ?

�l[�r� In most litigation the court of appeals is for practical purposes the court All Rights Reserved. -P- -dSAFER -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dAutoRotatePages=/None -dPDFSETTINGS=/ebook -dDetectDuplicateImages=true h�bbd```b``a�� �1L�H��`�e�/"sT@�X=c8X�$��$�o�������������30Ҝ�����{� l*@ �a�D��փ^�2����x^�/�|^����������p0K���.W�PM?h�he9� h��X[S�F~��8����]R���&S[&���� #Sc���{vWB�4��C���+Y������ޔ��]o;��2���4���߉HR34���\�(cLAv�q�5d_{�hI�"���d׽7��d�j�n�$`bM#e���GxY1����}Min�������ف����Y��

%�쏢 Get Guns.com offers and news, Need Help?service@guns.comCall (866)582-4867, PO Box 1131 13800 Nicollet Blvd Burnsville, MN 55337 ©2019 Guns.com. }c���Y�c ��� %fi�9��-���$�X���b �� endstream endobj startxref h�b```e``*b`a``wgd@ A�+sL`(� [!v�K]�� �P|���F����(��� VN/3� v��y�?��P�xi�: dL y\��'�# �.�c��)�KQ���*̋"������2�� ���gW��A���L븩v3wX�n0���[o��B*�pz�q�dZ��uK���@�� � endstream endobj 500 0 obj <> endobj 501 0 obj <>/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]>>/Rotate 0/Type/Page>> endobj 502 0 obj <>stream Upwards of 500,000 bump stocks were sold with current possession of an unregistered device punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison for first-time offenders. 3. The case argued that ATF essentially rewrote the definition as set out by previous laws, something that was not in the agency’s power to do. x��Z[���o�b#�D!��l��[��%ɲ� "Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. %%Invocation: path/gs -P- -dSAFER -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -q -P- -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sstdout=? x�Xs? stream _____ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado The Honorable Richard P. Matsch (D. Ct. No. But in a civil case, unless an order shortens or extends the time, the petition may be filed by any party within 45 days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is: (A) the United States; (B) a United States agency; h�tWyX��OɌU��Og�L��к��Zk���>W�ԅh ( ! Stay in the know. ;���2M���Zv"����o�g���o��/������j+\\9Y���. 10-1363 OLIVEA MARX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. !iҍ�L���UQ Only the United States Supreme Court can review decisions of the Tenth Circuit. 515 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[]/Index[499 36]/Info 498 0 R/Length 92/Prev 586346/Root 500 0 R/Size 535/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream A federal appeals court last week vacated an earlier decision that upheld the federal government's ban on bump stocks and granted a petition for a rehearing. The Tenth Circuit noted in a 1988 case that only 1.3% of all rehearing petitions in that circuit had been granted that year. �Q�c��t?�O�G{��v�h�-UEh���oi�85 PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Rachel B. Maxam Anya Bidwell LAW OFFICE OF RACHEL B. MAXAM, PLLC INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 600 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 960 Denver, Colorado 80202 Austin, Texas 78701 (720) 526-2928 (512) 480-5936 Counsel for Plaintiffs – Appellants Counsel for Plaintiffs - Appellants 499 0 obj <> endobj Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 202-595-4671 benjamin.barr @gmail.com STEPHEN ... and Tenth Circuit precedent that protects grassroots groups against the indiscriminate application of … A��Ŭ�~�%Z�g�6(?���kI�M�����#|��� ��ۼD��Ŭ(��!�`��6rx�t�t锨��2�U�FR"Q�7�/�=/�,ƞ7�T���ox�zD�X�oG���:�w@L,V�1m�YEC,t�^��:Ċ�@d3���"-�I?P���8�w@Rm(�&�μ�^ȩ�,�h���b���2T��gD�x��`KlA^�=V1��\�� � �=�)5�����D�2"��b�_����:�_쨸˔�4�j��� d���uY+g�"q���݈�5���X1U�4������j�~>��u��_w}�[�3�8)w�#ւ����X�#��ۻ߂�i���;�+v�pޏq������N��!����h�88W��df���5���k9��(#�\��#GF���G��j[ik"����1�8Ķ�



Now, the full 12-judge court will rehear the challenge, with a special focus on if and how Chevron applies.

numbers tell that much. F�����ھ����5P�W$��>�u~��l���`y�Z������lq�€1dBC�Q0�َg96���O��+�Wg�����*� ��P{�� �،bh?�M�wߨ��N��D$�Zì�_3��M���d쟨T+AkՃ����Z�hCA� �%e.�l�Ta��cw��0=N����C�%�]Lc�\BA9׉��.���/f�b=��-�Y���)ٕ�%Ts��]��{*�J�0D��T�1�\|�y�Ah8�e\ˆ&\ ���V��(}���(P���Q:Ȇ�#���)n�j&��1�m��sA8�w�8GKK��v���e�l6��KʨUh�c|C������4���K{���Ј�:�XB(-���bw��J��iն���z5? PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC ----- ----- BENJAMIN T. BARR 10737 Hunting Ln. endstream endobj 503 0 obj <>stream

Circuit. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach.". The U.S. 10th Circuit, based in Denver, Colorado, agreed to an en banc petition in the case of Utah gun rights advocate W. Clark Aposhian, backed by … +i;������P��G�E°GʈG�}O��CL���0�#����-���C~��g��y1K00�p�j���0�bEz���ċ�6����O�na/��x��%tvNJ�;�;:Z�M ֙D00�=���f�m̱��f��u5�N�t���'�z�(]���K#AJ�{A$��%���'>��:sH���x��zrf���EǞ��6���{��Z�ӑ�6#�Ң�l��{sڽ3 �|8:��H�ut40dtt�Y0�` ��LFU�l@8؀����`ԐVE�X```�`ഐ�:K��?�A�� ��|G���oe`�d�4?1�nk6���|�1���Ew�rq1\fr� I\O�A �b5�gQ>C/�Re�zz�o��BFM�o���� ��� “The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision," said Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA. endstream endobj 504 0 obj <>stream Indeed, the United States Supreme Court accepts for review less than one percent of the Tenth Circuit’s cases. Litigants must bear in mind that rehearing en banc is an extraordinary procedure and if the court finds the petition frivolous, the filing party may be ordered to pay a money penalty of up to $500.00. �,j|驫k�g�����q(.aT���U�y꺗�������[��>�fNv��SY�N��E~{�,���R˟�$'���`"ԉ���et�O�yq=�A�c2/��l��D^^q/�������ۆ{*��MBj����+r|�-Yz��v�Ŗ�Ȥ�1{�)(QT� �Fi7(%�D#6��P)� 9锭$�,�p�c5ǘ��`b�u�ӎ��M.L�Uu����B$/E�6Ӊ[���r�ԶHn���%W��vF�L��;��3K�ܼ����Ԩ�s���ٍ��؎}��������y3}L=��2��Vn%v�P;7��bN>B,�s��J���, U�\��*2��-,�ث�gDV�6���&c���Fħ��v�����s���߸AQ7�z�!U�JvJ��˷�X�}��0L��w�앟0��y���6�!�`�&Ô�� ��Ll��sG�M��e͇DiE�������E)�r���؏�^�?

-f ?

-sOutputFile=? Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF had issued several classification decisions concluding that certain bump-stock-type devices were not machine guns. x�5L��0��+n���. "Y�� ��� While a 2-1 panel of the same court previously upheld the ban in May by relying in part on what is referred to as the Chevron deference, which allows courts to default to agency interpretations of ambiguous statues, Judge Joel Carson III, a President Trump appointee, dissented at the time, describing the ban as an overreach, saying, “turning a blind eye to the government’s request and applying Chevron anyway—the majority placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.". In almost all instances the Court has the discretion whether to take the case. �N����H��{8�)��L�Z]��Wr� �\j���Lw��4 n9�hE �mu#��;�u ���1�m\�`=ғ���Ai3e��썴B������_i:S6���Jg(n���;vu��QF5�5�O�����m���AD�x�K�5s����L`���˰�~���#3��=$���f\���f@�%�s�o7y ��\Kt�&���'k��we&�&v5�������0�i�d�U��f���� ^���lY&��uL����%��ܾh8�o-U[���ڶ�M�f��-w,~\P. 10 0 obj It noted that the panel’s no-disclaimer ruling is in accord with a decision of the D.C. �� @��b�$�_�¿� �a�B���h��c1���CL�#��w,��ʑ�8a��|�xK$&�L֑��ip�R���I�RϣS�N7?�78���$&� �b�*�$�X��B�D��{XOY:3Xa'��8��g�����xcfij4��z\��L���|ecN_F�9[?�:���꬏����v�J��_=s�Il�\bD i��Yȯ�� �%Ћ�pϣo�V˽�� �?���!�Ig}&�hO�n���U��;5S� �i+G֯��L�&�����_�2���J$U����8�1���ۃbO3S����7ޏR�O`{2Lw��e�0�d� �G����q)�Ib�ݥI��T��k�hY��4�O�Idy��%�n��Ѩ��]������x�A ��ڼG��d`ϬJ��R��Xr��9�� v�c