User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 4:51:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: The problem is that the Dems don't respect rule of law and will do as they wish. However the court did settle a number of things from a legal perspective: 1) It's an individual right. 2) Can't ban handguns outright. 3) It applies to the states. 4) It applies to modern firearms and other weapons. 5) Can't ban carry. 6) Text and tradition is the basis for understanding the 2nd. And yet NYS has banned carry anywhere outside the home except for, as the governor put it, " a few streets". She also said that she doesn't believe in good guys with guns, so to her every gun owner is a bad person |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 4:53:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryFour boxes diner is good, but god damn he's starting to become like that phaggot Armed Schooler with his "Major Breaking News" on every video. The SCOTUS taking the case is not Major Breaking News. Them ruling on AWB's positively would be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 5:05:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bad2006z71: Four boxes diner is good, but god damn he's starting to become like that phaggot Armed Schooler with his "Major Breaking News" on every video. The SCOTUS taking the case is not Major Breaking News. Them ruling on AWB's positively would be. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bad2006z71: Four boxes diner is good, but god damn he's starting to become like that phaggot Armed Schooler with his "Major Breaking News" on every video. The SCOTUS taking the case is not Major Breaking News. Them ruling on AWB's positively would be. I'd say a gun case being granted cert is major breaking news, it only happens a few times a decade... Kharn |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 5:15:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gearsmithy: 1000% THIS I've been saying it for a long time, if we want SCOTUS to weigh in on AWBs then get Texas to pass one with the intention of striking it down in the 5th and the state appealing to SCOTUS. We need to start generating circuit splits to force SCOTUS's hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gearsmithy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Get Texas to pass one 1000% THIS I've been saying it for a long time, if we want SCOTUS to weigh in on AWBs then get Texas to pass one with the intention of striking it down in the 5th and the state appealing to SCOTUS. We need to start generating circuit splits to force SCOTUS's hand. Exactly. They have to be forced to rule on it, otherwise they will weasel their way out of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 5:24:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TW52: Aweaome, but would rather see them take up the state AWB's first.  This. I miss my freedom
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 5:43:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Not excited about this.
To win this case, the argument will have to simultaneously assert that: 1) 80% receivers aren't firearms, i.e. arms, and 2) 80% receivers are arms that are protected by the 2A. If you argue that the 80% is not a firearm (or arm, to specifically relate to the amendment), then the government could theoretically legislate them in whatever manner they choose without any relation to the 2A. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 5:51:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTM1: Yep, as my state has been full on draconian for over a decade and I am not getting any younger and realizing I cannot move.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:10:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gearsmithy: 1000% THIS I've been saying it for a long time, if we want SCOTUS to weigh in on AWBs then get Texas to pass one with the intention of striking it down in the 5th and the state appealing to SCOTUS. We need to start generating circuit splits to force SCOTUS's hand. Bingo ! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:11:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Bruen settled the question asked for good. No state is may issue with good cause statements anymore. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Like Bruen did? Bruen settled the question asked for good. No state is may issue with good cause statements anymore. Yep, and afterward blue states across the country passed even stricter laws that infringe even more. What a victory. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 7:15:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StevenH]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDiggler: Not excited about this. To win this case, the argument will have to simultaneously assert that: 1) 80% receivers aren't firearms, i.e. arms, and 2) 80% receivers are arms that are protected by the 2A. If you argue that the 80% is not a firearm (or arm, to specifically relate to the amendment), then the government could theoretically legislate them in whatever manner they choose without any relation to the 2A. It’s not a 2A case. To win they have to show ATF/DOJ lacked authority to classify them as firearms absent congressional approval |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:17:25 PM EDT
[#11]
I hope it is not a mistake to ask a question I don't know the answer to but I did send this request to my Senators who both sit on the Judiciary committee:
Senator, The Supreme Court has just agreed to hearing the administration's appeal on the ATF's new rule concerning Privately Made Firearms, PMF, or what the press prejudicially refers to as "ghost guns." It is imperative that before this case is heard, Directors Wray and Dettelbach be asked, or required to respond if you can: the number of gun traces performed per year AND the number of convictions for violent crimes with a firearm where the sole clue to identifying the perpetrator was through a trace of the firearm used in the crime. If the number is actually greater than zero, to name the cases. Thank you |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:55:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gearsmithy: 1000% THIS I've been saying it for a long time, if we want SCOTUS to weigh in on AWBs then get Texas to pass one with the intention of striking it down in the 5th and the state appealing to SCOTUS. We need to start generating circuit splits to force SCOTUS's hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gearsmithy: Originally Posted By StevenH: Get Texas to pass one 1000% THIS I've been saying it for a long time, if we want SCOTUS to weigh in on AWBs then get Texas to pass one with the intention of striking it down in the 5th and the state appealing to SCOTUS. We need to start generating circuit splits to force SCOTUS's hand. I'd rather take the other approach and, for example, have Missouri, or any State with a pro-2A AG that has a backbone, pass a magazine size limit. 'All long guns with detachable magazines and manufactured following 6 months after this bill is signed into law must be sold with at least one functional magazine for that firearm having a capacity of at least 24 cartridges. Failure to abide by this law is punishable by a fine of $0.10 per firearm sold without such a magazine ...' and payable to whatever part of the State manages public shooting ranges and to allocated for that purpose. Let the antiliberty folks take that one to court and have the Militia Act of 1792 thrown in their face. I think it fits the Bruen 'test' and the fine gives a cheap out for manufacturers who can't or don't want to comply. A 24 round mag in .50BMG might be a bit awkward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:13:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DIYinSTL: I'd rather take the other approach and, for example, have Missouri, or any State with a pro-2A AG that has a backbone, pass a magazine size limit. 'All long guns with detachable magazines and manufactured following 6 months after this bill is signed into law must be sold with at least one functional magazine for that firearm having a capacity of at least 24 cartridges. Failure to abide by this law is punishable by a fine of $0.10 per firearm sold without such a magazine ...' and payable to whatever part of the State manages public shooting ranges and to allocated for that purpose. Let the antiliberty folks take that one to court and have the Militia Act of 1792 thrown in their face. I think it fits the Bruen 'test' and the fine gives a cheap out for manufacturers who can't or don't want to comply. A 24 round mag in .50BMG might be a bit awkward. That also raises a question. What if they openly did it to intentionally generate a circuit court split? Would that hurt the case in SCOTUS? If the penalty was really light, it might be obviously legal shenanigans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:15:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1Andy2]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlackTuono: I thought we already had a win on that in the 5th, SCOTUS taking it up isn't necessarily a good thing. I won't hold my breath for a Bruen-like opinion excoriating the ATF and gutting Chevron deference. The Court should be taking up the cases from state laws and state courts expressly sticking their thumb in Bruen's eye. USSC is where something like this winds up when circuit Court decisions conflict. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:26:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By madmacs69: Remember that questionnaire sent out by the ATF about FFL's ability to engrave? All part of the plan... UN is about to have a big gun control push too... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By Mach: MA is in the process of passing a sweeping anti-gun law that will require all guns and most parts to be serialized including pre 1968 firearms and they must be serialized by a federally licensed person authorized to serialize guns. Remember that questionnaire sent out by the ATF about FFL's ability to engrave? All part of the plan... UN is about to have a big gun control push too... Hadn’t heard about any questionnaire about engraving, but you have to wonder if the sudden improvement in NFA stamp wait times is part of an effort to make wider registration more palatable. I mean, how does it make any sense for the ATF to suddenly get so efficient at approvals? Especially under this administration? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:22:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jd2395: it does not matter. the states are ignoring everything they don't like (NY, NJ, CA, etc) as well as soon-to-be converted to commie states (ex. VA dems passed 35+ bills that directly violate not only the 2A but also Heller, Miller, Bruen - all vetoed, but coming back). Another Bruen ruling will lead to simply more of the same. The big mistake in our Founding or somewhere is the AJ is appointed by the President. So, commie Garland would be who would/should be suing the crap out of states for these violations and you see how that is going. How is that a mistake? What is your preferred alternative? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 2:22:00 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDiggler: Not excited about this. To win this case, the argument will have to simultaneously assert that: 1) 80% receivers aren't firearms, i.e. arms, and 2) 80% receivers are arms that are protected by the 2A. If you argue that the 80% is not a firearm (or arm, to specifically relate to the amendment), then the government could theoretically legislate them in whatever manner they choose without any relation to the 2A. Really? What part of the Constitution grants the Feds the power to legislate regarding them in any manner they choose, even in the absence of the 2nd Amendment? No such power exists. Neither does a power exist to permit the executive to effectively legislate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 2:38:38 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dsteelman: Yep, I can see them saying SNs aren't an infringement Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dsteelman: Originally Posted By chase45: Yeah we might not like the ruling on this one Yep, I can see them saying SNs aren't an infringement |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 4:04:33 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TW52: Aweaome, but would rather see them take up the state AWB's/Mag bans first. Seems they keep tip toeing around those huh? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 4:31:57 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: USSC is where something like this winds up when circuit Court decisions conflict. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By BlackTuono: I thought we already had a win on that in the 5th, SCOTUS taking it up isn't necessarily a good thing. I won't hold my breath for a Bruen-like opinion excoriating the ATF and gutting Chevron deference. The Court should be taking up the cases from state laws and state courts expressly sticking their thumb in Bruen's eye. USSC is where something like this winds up when circuit Court decisions conflict. And in this case, the win in the 5th is what the .gov is appealing, IIRC. It's not the pro-2A (and anti-"regulatory agencies effectively able to write new laws") side who appealed this to USSC, since they won in the 5th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 6:02:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DDiggler: Not excited about this. To win this case, the argument will have to simultaneously assert that: 1) 80% receivers aren't firearms, i.e. arms, and 2) 80% receivers are arms that are protected by the 2A. If you argue that the 80% is not a firearm (or arm, to specifically relate to the amendment), then the government could theoretically legislate them in whatever manner they choose without any relation to the 2A. I disagree. The 2A protects "arms". The ATF regulates "firearms". The ATF has no authority to regulate knives, clubs, axes, swords, crossbows, blowguns, or anything else that doesn't fire fixed metallic cartridges. But they are all protected by the Second Amendment. A thing can be a protected "arm" while also NOT being a "firearm". "Firearm" is just a definition made up by legislators. A solid steel rod can be used as a club (an "arm") and it could also be made into a "firearm" by milling away everything that isn't in the shape of a receiver. A typical 80% receiver can be fitted with a stock and attached to an upper with no FCG pocket or magwell milled out and you can put a bayonet on that upper and have a deadly "arm" that isn't a "firearm". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 6:47:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kharn]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jambalaya: I disagree. The 2A protects "arms". The ATF regulates "firearms". The ATF has no authority to regulate knives, clubs, axes, swords, crossbows, blowguns, or anything else that doesn't fire fixed metallic cartridges. But they are all protected by the Second Amendment. A thing can be a protected "arm" while also NOT being a "firearm". "Firearm" is just a definition made up by legislators. A solid steel rod can be used as a club (an "arm") and it could also be made into a "firearm" by milling away everything that isn't in the shape of a receiver. A typical 80% receiver can be fitted with a stock and attached to an upper with no FCG pocket or magwell milled out and you can put a bayonet on that upper and have a deadly "arm" that isn't a "firearm". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jambalaya: Originally Posted By DDiggler: Not excited about this. To win this case, the argument will have to simultaneously assert that: 1) 80% receivers aren't firearms, i.e. arms, and 2) 80% receivers are arms that are protected by the 2A. If you argue that the 80% is not a firearm (or arm, to specifically relate to the amendment), then the government could theoretically legislate them in whatever manner they choose without any relation to the 2A. I disagree. The 2A protects "arms". The ATF regulates "firearms". The ATF has no authority to regulate knives, clubs, axes, swords, crossbows, blowguns, or anything else that doesn't fire fixed metallic cartridges. But they are all protected by the Second Amendment. A thing can be a protected "arm" while also NOT being a "firearm". "Firearm" is just a definition made up by legislators. A solid steel rod can be used as a club (an "arm") and it could also be made into a "firearm" by milling away everything that isn't in the shape of a receiver. A typical 80% receiver can be fitted with a stock and attached to an upper with no FCG pocket or magwell milled out and you can put a bayonet on that upper and have a deadly "arm" that isn't a "firearm". Vanderstok brings up the 2nd Amendment several times in her response to the government's petition for cert, so the Court could rule on that as well. And the feds should be prepared to defend why in the history and tradition of the United States, the feds never restricted home manufacturing of firearms until this action, did not require serial numbers for "normal" firearms from manufacturers until 1968, and so on. Bruen requires they look back to the time of ratification of the 2nd and 14th Amendments, so they're going to be in quite a pickle. The feds also played fast and loose with this regulation, mincing the words from DD, silencer, and MG sections of the statute in attempt to apply them to the Title I firearm section of the statute, when Congress specifically did not include those words in that section. Oral arguments will be very interesting. Kharn |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:15:56 AM EDT
[#23]
The problem with these cases like this and the bump stock case is while they involve guns they are not being challenged on 2A grounds. So there is no Bruin analysis and there is a presumption at least congress can pass such laws. The fight ends up being just about if aft can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:20:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By inkaybee: The problem with these cases like this and the bump stock case is while they involve guns they are not being challenged on 2A grounds. So there is no Bruin analysis and there is a presumption at least congress can pass such laws. The fight ends up being just about if aft can. Yeah there's always the risk they rule that the ATF can't do anything, but leave the door wide open for congressnto just pass something. Every time a rule is made or a law passed, you are lokming at a years-long wait for it to work through the courts, and at the end, either an unfavorable ruling, or one so narrow as to allow continued infringement everywhere outside the scope of the ruling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:42:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By inkaybee: The problem with these cases like this and the bump stock case is while they involve guns they are not being challenged on 2A grounds. So there is no Bruin analysis and there is a presumption at least congress can pass such laws. The fight ends up being just about if aft can. The court can only consider the case before it, they can't go off of hypotheticals. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 10:00:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: thirsty]
[#26]
Never mind
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 10:13:43 AM EDT
[#27]
TTAG says the 5th Circuit unanimously upheld the district court, meaning that 4 out of 4 judges disagree with the ATF so far:
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/supreme-court-will-take-up-ghost-gun-case-this-fall/ |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:32:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: TTAG says the 5th Circuit unanimously upheld the district court, meaning that 4 out of 4 judges disagree with the ATF so far: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/supreme-court-will-take-up-ghost-gun-case-this-fall/ well the ATF is a bunch of useless cunts, top to bottom. So that's good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:57:54 PM EDT
[#29]
HUGE SCOTUS ATF 2ND AMENDMENT CASE: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR GUN OWNERS?
 HUGE SCOTUS ATF 2ND AMENDMENT CASE: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR GUN OWNERS? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 8:19:23 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 9:21:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DIYinSTL: I hope it is not a mistake to ask a question I don't know the answer to but I did send this request to my Senators who both sit on the Judiciary committee: Senator, The Supreme Court has just agreed to hearing the administration's appeal on the ATF's new rule concerning Privately Made Firearms, PMF, or what the press prejudicially refers to as "ghost guns." It is imperative that before this case is heard, Directors Wray and Dettelbach be asked, or required to respond if you can: the number of gun traces performed per year AND the number of convictions for violent crimes with a firearm where the sole clue to identifying the perpetrator was through a trace of the firearm used in the crime. If the number is actually greater than zero, to name the cases. Thank you I've been told that the firearm serial number is about as helpful in solving crimes as a chalk outline on the sidewalk. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 9:25:07 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RattleCanAR: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/255381/IMG_4274_jpeg-3197081.JPG Noted and lawful. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
