[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS upholds the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act (Page 1 of 6)
Posted: 3/26/2025 10:16:02 AM EDT
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf |
|
I’ve pointed out for years (and was attacked here for years) that: Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stated in their confirmation hearings that they are fine with the bans and restrictions in the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA. Both specifically stated they are in favor of machine gun bans and Gorsuch clarified this yet again last year. Kavanaugh likes to rule on precedent NOT Founder’s intent. Barrett sided with the leftist judges on homemade guns AND is for a lifetime gun ban for misdemeanor domestic violence in the past two years. The recent “wins” on braces and bumpstocks were NOT based on 2nd Amendment grounds, only on ATF Chevron / exceeding regulatory authority grounds. And Gorsuch basically said that if Congress outright bans bumpstocks that he would consider that perfectly acceptable. So, none of them outside of Thomas is pro 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia was for restrictions and was not pro-2A from a Founder’s perspective (got hung up on what weapons could be easily carried/to bear. Bruen and Heller were used to justify magazine limits/bans in NJ (happened many times). Both decisions, while having some good, have to do with defending against common criminals NOT the true meaning of defending against tyrants and genocidal governments. And as long as these lawsuits only speak of common criminals as being the only reason for the 2A OR talk about “sporting purposes” we will continue to lose. People here keep saying that Trump’s SCOTUS appointments are “pro-gun.” But what is meant by “pro-gun”? Pro-gun can mean anything. Diane Feinstein was pro-revolver and pro hunting rifle since she owned and carried a snub nose handgun and bought her son a bolt action hunting rifle. Big difference between pro-gun and pro-2A but many conservatives seem not to know the difference. |
|
Quoted: I've pointed out for years (and was attacked here for years) that: Kavanaugh and Gorsuch stated in their confirmation hearings that they are fine with the bans and restrictions in the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA. Both specifically stated they are in favor of machine gun bans and Gorsuch clarified this yet again last year. Kavanaugh likes to rule on precedent NOT Founder's intent. Barrett sided with the leftist judges on homemade guns AND is for a lifetime gun ban for misdemeanor domestic violence in the past two years. The recent "wins" on braces and bumpstocks were NOT based on 2nd Amendment grounds, only on ATF Chevron / exceeding regulatory authority grounds. And Gorsuch basically said that if Congress outright bans bumpstocks that he would consider that perfectly acceptable. So, none of them outside of Thomas is pro 2nd Amendment. Even Scalia was for restrictions and was not pro-2A from a Founder's perspective (got hung up on what weapons could be easily carried/to bear. Bruen and Heller were used to justify magazine limits/bans in NJ (happened many times). Both decisions, while having some good, have to do with defending against common criminals NOT the true meaning of defending against tyrants and genocidal governments. And as long as these lawsuits only speak of common criminals as being the only reason for the 2A OR talk about "sporting purposes" we will continue to lose. People here keep saying that Trump's SCOTUS appointments are "pro-gun." But what is meant by "pro-gun"? Pro-gun can mean anything. Diane Feinstein was pro-revolver and pro hunting rifle since she owned and carried a snub nose handgun and bought her son a bolt action hunting rifle. Big difference between pro-gun and pro-2A but many conservatives seem not to know the difference. Trump's picks are Pro gun just as Trump is. Pro gun in the sense you can own a hunting rifle/shotgun and a revolver. You have the right to own a handgun in the home and probably have the right to carry a firearm with restrictions. They are most likely ok with fees associated with gun ownership/carrying. They are probably ok with AW and Mag bans and/or licensing for such. Thomas and Alito are our only 2A friends on the court. |
| The opinion if anyone cares to read it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf |
|
Quoted: The opinion if anyone cares to read it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf apparently you can't even read the first post. |
|
Quoted: The opinion if anyone cares to read it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf Every gun owner should read it |
|
From Alito....a short explanation of what was really ruled on today. —————— 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s suggestion that I have mischaracterized what the Court has held, ante, at 2 (concurring opinion), demands a response. Although JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR obviously wishes that the Court had gone further, all that the Court has actually held is that the ATF rule is not facially invalid because at least some applications of the rule are consistent with the statute. And the two examples that the Court cites are (1) a kit that contains all the parts needed to make a semiautomatic pistol and that can be assembled in 21 minutes, see ante, at 8–13, and (2) a frame that can be made functional simply by clipping off two plastic tabs and drilling a few holes, ante, at 17–18, 21. The Court has not held that any other kits or presently non-functional receivers are covered. |
|
Quoted: When I made that post YOU hadn't edited your post to include the pdf link.  Quoted: Quoted: apparently you can't even read the first post. When I made that post YOU hadn't edited your post to include the pdf link. try again, I had the PDF before I edited it with the follow-up tweets. |
|
Quoted: I mean the propellant doesn't explode lol Quoted: Quoted: "any weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." Leaves some "inventive areas of exploration "  So, technically this applies only to homemade black powder weapons? That would be a hoot. |
|
|
Quoted: try again, I had the PDF before I edited it with the follow-up tweets. Nope. When I loaded the page your first post ONLY had the first tweet and nothing else. The few replies beneath it did not have the opinion. So I hit the reply button and while reading the first tweet went and got the link to the opinion, pasted it in and hit reply. |
|
This outcome is bullshit, BUT, was the question before the court a constitutional one? Or was it a statutory one? I don't have time to read the opinion right now, but the above is important to answer. If the court was only arguing over the statute, it actually looks like they made the right ruling. The GCA likely does give the ATF power to regulate unserialized at-home guns. The deeper question is whether the GCA is constitutional in the first place. I think we all agree it is not. Fuck the GCA. Fuck the ATF. But was the constitutionality of the GCA part of this case? Very curious. This may be a case of gun owners getting screwed by bad attorneys or bad questions before the court. |
|
Quoted: Trump guys… “Only the best scotus picks.” They will save us all from the tyrannical commies! I don't know that there are many lawyers with degrees from Ivy League schools that will not be totally fine with gun control juxtaposed against "shall not be infringed". It seems no one with a JD from any school outside of the Ivy League can be considered for a Supreme Court seat, so I'm not sure where one should go from here. Unfortunately, Trump just doesn't give a shit about gun rights so we're probably stuck. Maybe someone will talk him into reversing this bullshit rule. 7-2. Damn. If I were President, I'd nominate the guy with a law degree from night school as a justice, just to go against the grain. 
|
|
Quoted: is it just kits with ALL parts included that can be regulated or does it include ALL kits such as 80% aluminum AR receivers that require milling and additional components? Quoted: is it just kits with ALL parts included that can be regulated or does it include ALL kits such as 80% aluminum AR receivers that require milling and additional components? Alito's dissent implies its narrow, but as we have seen before, anything can be interpreted broadly. The decisions does seem to harp on 20 minutes or less being too fast, which is completely arbitrary. 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s suggestion that I have mischaracterized what the Court has held, ante, at 2 (concurring opinion), demands a response. Although JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR obviously wishes that the Court had gone further, all that the Court has actually held is that the ATF rule is not facially invalid because at least some applications of the rule are consistent with the statute. And the two examples that the Court cites are (1) a kit that contains all the parts needed to make a semiautomatic pistol and that can be assembled in 21 minutes, see ante, at 8–13, and (2) a frame that can be made functional simply by clipping off two plastic tabs and drilling a few holes, ante, at 17–18, 21. The Court has not held that any other kits or presently non-functional receivers are covered. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS upholds the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act (Page 1 of 6)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter