National Court Strikes Down ATF Frame/Receiver Rule

[The Heretic]

While one district court might say this is on hold for dealers the ATF controls dealers and the ATF isn't going to budge for licensed dealers nationwide. They dont act by district.

There was a post earlier asserting that APA court rulings apply nationwide?

 

[wired]

There was a post earlier asserting that APA court rulings apply nationwide?

The ATF wont accept that.

 

[CamoDeafie]

There was a post earlier asserting that APA court rulings apply nationwide?

The ATF wont accept that.

So.. Basically SCOTUS decisions, if they grant cert and hear.. and even then, DOJ/ATF might still keep going unless stopped by Congressional Act?

 

[wired]

So.. Basically SCOTUS decisions, if they grant cert and hear.. and even then, DOJ/ATF might still keep going unless stopped by Congressional Act?

The ATF reacts to SCOTUS decisions. Those apply nationwide. Look at the difference between Thompson Center V US and the Bumpstock Ban . A district ruled the bumpstock ban unconstitutional . The ATF hasn't changed its song on that one one bit. SCOTUS told the ATF that a pistol could be a rifle then a pistol again and the ATF changed regs, rules and made it their gospel.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The ATF reacts to SCOTUS decisions. Those apply nationwide. Look at the difference between Thompson Center V US and the Bumpstock Ban . A district ruled the bumpstock ban unconstitutional . The ATF hasn't changed its song on that one one bit. SCOTUS told the ATF that a pistol could be a rifle then a pistol again and the ATF changed regs, rules and made it their gospel.

Thompson case was 90s. This is now. Different people in charge as you've claimed that if the guy who ran tech branch in the 90s was still around the brace would have never been allowed in the first place... right?

 

[wired]

Thompson case was 90s. This is now. Different people in charge as you've claimed that if the guy who ran tech branch in the 90s was still around the brace would have never been allowed in the first place... right

Ed Owens? Oh yeah. if he was still around we wouldnt be having the discussion over braces because SIG wouldnt have pulled the wool over their eyes in the first place. Say what you want about Owens but he ran a tight ship.

In any case the ATF is a national agency not a district agency. Federal rules apply nationwide and the only thing that is going to change national policy is SCOTUS.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ed Owens? Oh yeah. if he was still around we wouldnt be having the discussion over braces because SIG wouldnt have pulled the wool over their eyes in the first place. Say what you want about Owens but he ran a tight ship.

In any case the ATF is a national agency not a district agency. Federal rules apply nationwide and the only thing that is going to change national policy is SCOTUS.

I'm just saying that even if SCOTUS said 5th District's right for whichever cases (Cargill, frame receiver one, pistol brace, etc); if its not a Decision/Ruling...; the DOJ and ATF might still be saying the same thing they are saying...

I mean.. look at the GVRs and the Caetano Opinion that has never come up again since then

 

[wired]

I'm just saying that even if SCOTUS said 5th District's right for whichever cases (Cargill, frame receiver one, pistol brace, etc); if its not a Decision/Ruling...; the DOJ and ATF might still be saying the same thing they are saying...

I mean.. look at the GVRs and the Caetano Opinion that has never come up again since then

If its worded the way TC v US i.e. very concisely and to the point , a specific ruling on a specific item, then the ATF will bend over backwards applying it. If its some flowery BS like "Common Use" then good luck.

 

[Yarome]

So.. Basically SCOTUS decisions, if they grant cert and hear.. and even then, DOJ/ATF might still keep going unless stopped by Congressional Act?

I'm sure they will try to have Judge O'Conners ruling limited or outright nullified, but as it stands... the ruling is valid... and despite what some might think, any enforcement that takes place while the order is in place would have no legal standing.

If it's nullified, then that could roll back the clock... as if it never happened... and any enforcement in that interim would still be valid.

The idea though that the alphabet can simply ignore any court ruling they choose to... unless it comes from SCOTUS... is incorrect. A federal judge issuing a nationwide injunction is quite rare, but not without precedence and there is plenty of case law to support that action. They are typically only used in response to executive orders or other federal agency rules, regulations, or policies... exactly like the alphabets frame and receiver rule.

An interesting fact... during the first year that Trump was first elected federal judges issued over 20 nationwide injunctions.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm sure they will try to have Judge O'Conners ruling limited or outright nullified, but as it stands... the ruling is valid... and despite what some might think, any enforcement that takes place while the order is in place would have no legal standing.

If it's nullified, then that rolls back the clock... as if it never happened... and any enforcement in that interim would still be valid.

The idea though that the alphabet can simply ignore any court ruling they choose to... unless it comes from SCOTUS... is incorrect. A federal judge issuing a nationwide injunction is quite rare, but not without precedence and there is plenty of case law to support that action. They are typically only used in response to executive orders or other federal agency rules, regulations, or policies... exactly like the alphabets frame and receiver rule.

An interesting fact... during the first year that Trump was first elected federal judges issued over 20 nationwide injunctions.

Can you get bump stocks...? Since the 5th decided in Cargill?

 

[Yarome]

Can you get bump stocks...? Since the 5th decided in Cargill?

That wasn't a nationwide injunction... to my knowledge. The rule wasn't vacated. The judge simply granted an injunction for the plaintiffs and later expanded it to all citizens within the 5th district, IIRC(?)

I'm not 100% if it was the plaintiffs first and then expanded... or the initial injunction was districtwide. So many cases, I forget.

 

[wired]

That wasn't a nationwide injunction... to my knowledge.

Can you even buy one in the 5th? I heard there was a company in TX ready to sell them ( At $350 no less ) but I havent see anyone actually act on that.

 

[Yarome]

Can you even buy one in the 5th? I heard there was a company in TX ready to sell them ( At $350 no less ) but I havent see anyone actually act on that.

I dunno. I know they are allowed to, but as far as having them back on the shelves already or not, I don't know. I'm sure after it's been as long as it has that they were banned it will take time to restart the supply chain.

If I owned a business that could produce them though... I might hold off until the fat lady has sung. It wouldn't be good business to retool and produce a bunch of inventory when the possibility still exists for the injunction to be overturned.

 

[Yarome]

Just to add that I don't think the real important metric on the success of that injunction is whether or not a person can buy one off the shelf yet or not.

We all know how pathetic the compliance numbers were when the rule went into affect. I think the better metric is how many people are now free to utilize their legally obtained and owned firearm accessory.... that somehow materialized up out from under their gardens, crawlspaces or magically dropped out of their attics.

Just sayin...

 

[CamoDeafie]

Just to add that I don't think the real important metric on the success of that injunction is whether or not a person can buy one off the shelf yet or not.

We all know how pathetic the compliance numbers were when the rule went into affect. I think the better metric is how many people are now free to utilize their legally obtained and owned firearm accessory.... that somehow materialized up out from under their gardens, crawlspaces or magically dropped out of their attics.

Just sayin...

Or fished up from the depths and mud of water bodies.

 

[joken]

Spoze they will reimburse me for the money spent to make a couple of Glocks legal?

 

[PiratePast40]

Oops, my bad. Should have posted this here. Seems the judge that vacated the ATF rule has now placed a stay on his decision for a week.

 

[Yarome]

As of yesterday... the alphabet got another slap down. Their first round in the 5th district court of appeals was denied (in part). The 2 major elements that were challenged... the meat and potatoes... remains vacated. However, the unchallenged parts of the rule... the order to vacate was lifted pending appeal.

In the Vanderstock case not all elements of the rule were challenged. Only the 2 that mattered and had any impact on our rights. So basically... the court of appeals decided that vacating every portion of the rule was too broad and granted the alphabet a "win" on the parts no one cares about anyway.

In the ruling the judge stated that the alphabet was not likely to win on the merits of the case and the gooberment could show no harm if their appeal was not granted. Basically, maintaining the status quo of the past 50 years.

The judge also ordered an expedited hearing on the appeal so it's likely to be heard sometime before summers end.

Good news!!

 

[PiratePast40]

As of yesterday... the alphabet got another slap down. Their first round in the 5th district court of appeals was denied (in part). The 2 major elements that were challenged... the meat and potatoes... remains vacated. However, the unchallenged parts of the rule... the order to vacate was lifted pending appeal.

In the Vanderstock case not all elements of the rule were challenged. Only the 2 that mattered and had any impact on our rights. So basically... the court of appeals decided that vacating every portion of the rule was too broad and granted the alphabet a "win" on the parts no one cares about anyway.

In the ruling the judge stated that the alphabet was not likely to win on the merits of the case and the gooberment could show no harm if their appeal was not granted. Basically, maintaining the status quo of the past 50 years.

The judge also ordered an expedited hearing on the appeal so it's likely to be heard sometime before summers end.

Good news!!

Hope they can get to it soon. It'll have a big impact on the lawsuit against HB 2005. Don't forget, House Republicans, led by Vikki Breese Iverson, House Minority leader, presented a check for $25,000 to be used in the lawsuit against HB2005. Drop her a line to remind her of her commitment and ask the status of the lawsuit. Here's her email address: [email protected].

Not too long ago, I was told by a politician that "We don't see the light until you turn up the heat". Let's keep the heat turned up.

Here's a link to the OFF Alert.

 

[Provincial]

That wasn't a nationwide injunction... to my knowledge. The rule wasn't vacated. The judge simply granted an injunction for the plaintiffs and later expanded it to all citizens within the 5th district, IIRC(?)

I'm not 100% if it was the plaintiffs first and then expanded... or the initial injunction was districtwide. So many cases, I forget.

The practice of limiting Federal agencies conduct by Circuit Court District is in conflict with the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. From Wikipedia:

" Although the text of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Equal Protection Clause only against the states, the Supreme Court, since Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has applied the clause against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under a doctrine called "reverse incorporation".[121]​[122]"​

The argument would be that regulations must be enforced equally across the jurisdiction of the agency, not by Circuit Court District boundaries. Once overturned in one District, the rule must be enforced the same in all Districts, or the ruling stayed until the Supreme Court acts to sustain or overturn that ruling.