Posted on 07/28/2024 1:32:14 PM PDT by CFW
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that oral arguments for its upcoming case involving the government’s ban on so-called “ghost guns” will begin on Oct. 8. It is the lone gun-related challenge on the court’s fall docket.
The case, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenges the Department of Justice’s 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.
At issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and overstepping their bounds by making laws instead of enforcing them.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
SCOTUS ping!
October 2024 term will be here before you know it. The cases heard in October through April will be the ones we will be awaiting decisions on in May and June of next year (although opinions on the more simple cases may be issued earlier).
Just another attempt for the DemocRats to do an end run around the the law and Constitution using the administrative state.
How about the “assault” weapon ban SCOTUS?
In other court news pertaining to the Second Amendment:
“Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Companies for D.C. Shooting”
“In April, 2022, a 23-year-old from Fairfax, Virginia opened fire from a Washington, D.C. apartment, injuring four people before taking his own life. One of the victims of the shooting filed a $75 million lawsuit several months later that sought to blame a number of companies in the firearms industry responsible for the crime, including Daniel Defense, Magpul Industries, and Vista Outdoors.
In her initial complaint, Karen Lowy and her attorneys claimed that the companies “have deceptively and unfairly marketed their assault rifles, rifle accessories, and ammunition in ways designed to appeal to the impulsive, risk-taking tendencies of civilian adolescent and post-adolescent males—the same category of consumers Defendants have watched, time after time, commit the type of mass shooting that unfolded again at the Edmund Burke School.”
Now a federal judge has thrown out the lawsuit, ruling that Lowy failed to back up those claims with facts. “
Paging Mr. Bruen. Mr. Bruen please pick up a white courtesy telephone.
I don’t think any “assault” weapons ban has made it to SCOTUS yet. Or at least, not that I can recall. They have sent several cases back to lower courts for clarification of some issues but have not yet outright said that assault weapons bans are Constitutional.
I know Alito and Thomas have both indicated their opinions that those bans are unconstitutional but we will have to wait a while before we get something definitive from the full Court.
When it comes to the ATF, that agency is going to run into the brick wall of the Court’s opinion overturning the Chevron deference in some of their actions.
Thank God for the court and common sense.
Thank you!
they create a bureaucrappy and then let it run amok making up whatever damned “laws” it wants
it is
1. taxation without representation and thus, tyranny
2. unconstitutional way to operate a government
3. actually an almost-very-bad way to run a government (with some horrible outcomes)
4. here, direct deprivation of Constitutionally-recognized (and supposedly protected) individual liberties
5. breeds all sorts of distrust (and disgust) of government
It should not be hard to find historical examples of American individuals making their own firearms even back to the founding.
Thousands of examples as a matter of fact. However most guns, pistols, smooth-bores and rifles were made by private gunsmiths who had the skills to hand forge locks, stocks and barrels. There were what you could call gun factories back in the 1700s, in Europe called armories where they mainly produced military muskets and trade guns for use by fur traders in contact with North American Indians.
This case and others like it are why PoopyPants Biden, Fauxcahontas and the rest of the Dims are shrieking about changing the composition of the SCOTUS. They are losing in matters of constitutional law, so need to stack the deck.
Trees, rope and the will to use them are the answer.
Thank you for the ping.
“It should not be hard to find historical examples of American individuals making their own firearms even back to the founding.”
That is true. Even just a couple decades ago, making “potato guns” out of PVC pipe was a big thing around my neck of the woods. We’d..... argh... I mean... I’ve heard that people would take them to the large lake nearby and shoot potatoes out over the water. The method and physics of it works the same with any projectile.
Some of you don’t get out enough.
The question IS NOT whether individuals have the right to manufacture their own firearms, the question is whether they can do so without affixing a unique serial number to each arm.
The chief cause of this is the sale of the 80% AR15 lowers. Common sense dictates that if you back-step through the manufacturing process for a lower receiver, at some point it ceases being a firearm component and reverts to being just a block of aluminum. Or polymer plastic.
Once upon a time, the ATF agreed with that concept, and they arbitrarily put the line of demarcation at 80% completion. And that was okay, for a while.
The argy-bargy started when the biggest seller of the 80% lowers began selling complete kits, an 80% lower and all the AR parts you’d need, lock stock and soon-to-be smoking barrel, along with the 80% lower, and jigs and drill bits with which to finish it.
For OBiden’s ATF, that was functionally indistinguishable from selling a complete and functional firearm without a Form 4473 and an NICS check, so they invented a new law requiring 80% lowers to be regulated as firearms.
A North Texas federal judge ruled that that was unconstitutional, so the hoplophobes appealed to the 5th Circuit. 5th Circuit held that the lower court ruling was correct and upheld the injunction. Then the hoplophobes made an emergency appeal to SCOTUS and SCOTUS stayed the 5th Circuit’s ruling until it could consider the case in detail.
SCOTUS gave no reason for the stay, which isn’t uncommon with emergency appeals, but the vote to take up the case was 5-4, right down party lines with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch Kavanaugh on the short end of the stick.
So unless Roberts can be swayed that the ATF was overstepping its bounds (and this primarily will come down to its failure to follow the federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559), this one could be a squeaker.
The hoplophobes are arguing, in brief, that “ghost guns” are a major contribution to gun crime. Which first of all isn’t true. Unserialized guns are only a small percentage of those used in gun crimes. And second, the vast majority of the unserialized guns are ones that have had their serial numbers ground off, as opposed to home-made firearms that never have had a serial number. So the whole mess is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.
up until 2018 it was legal to put whatever the heck you wanted for a Serial Number, as long as it was in locations it was supposed to be, stamped, with certain size.
Anyone who did that was in full compliance, even if it said 2017FJB+Kamala.
They pulled that rule when CA tried forcing people to get SN’s from the CA DOJ, and no one was complying with it. That’s worked its way to outright banning. Because Fedzilla hates not knowing every gun and who owns it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.