National Court Strikes Down ATF Frame/Receiver Rule

[Stomper]

I'll wait for the mark smith video on it cuz he often can fill in the blanks and explain the context, fe "it's extremely rare for scotus to ever do...". Just an example not saying that applies here.

There is a "4d chess" possibility there with the potential for granting certiorari and judgment but I don't have that much faith in them.

Edit. The 4D chess possibility is that they rule against the ATF; and also tell States they can't do the same thing as the ATF did.

As I have been saying for years now…. Do NOT rely on lawyers wearing black robes to save you…

 

[CamoDeafie]

As I have been saying for years now…. Do NOT rely on lawyers wearing black robes to save you…

Like I said

I don't have that much faith in them just it's a "possibility" but unlikely. Edit. And despite the official District wins... States hellbent on infringing seem to be doubling down on them.

 

[Diamondback]

God DAMN John Roberts and all who put him on the bench... and ACB got a whole lotta 'splainin' to do too.

 

[Stomper]

Like I said

I don't have that much faith in them just it's a "possibility" but unlikely. Edit. And despite the official District wins... States hellbent on infringing seem to be doubling down on them.

They're attempting to grind the pro-2A advocates down.



The only winners in any of this are the lawyers and their billable hours.

 

[Diamondback]

They're attempting to grind the pro-2A advocates down.



The only winners in any of this are the lawyers and their billable hours.

Don't forget the grifters on both sides like Weasel Wayne and Wicked Witch Watts's coven of Demanding Harpies...

 

[Stomper]

Don't forget the grifters on both sides like Weasel Wayne and Wicked Witch Watts's coven of Demanding Harpies...

True, plus more than a few Youtube personalities….

 

[Yarome]

5th Circuit appeals court... just an informational update on the case progress.

 

[Yarome]

It looks like tomorrow.... the VanDerStok v. Garland case is being distributed for conference with the Supreme Court.

A recap. Back in February the gooberment filed for writ of certiorari, asking SCOTUS to hear the case. At this point they may decide to not hear it, in which case the current stay remains in place, or another possible outcome, they could throw out the lower courts ruling. In that event the case would progress to be fully argued before SCOTUS.

Time to pucker up and hope FPC's case is going to hold water.

 

[Yarome]

Sooo... Cert has been granted. SCOTUS Will be hearing the VanDerStok v. Garland case THIS term!

No clear word yet on the current injunction pending oral arguments, but I'm hoping no news is good news and think it would certainly be announced if they had decided to stay the current injunction(?)

I'm unclear if they didn't, meaning they won't be... or if they simply didn't rule on that part of the petition... yet(?)

If SCOTUS rules in our favor in this case, it will greatly undermine all the other alphabets unconstitutional rules of late where they have been relying on simply changing definitions to make new law.

 

[Stomper]

Sooo... Cert has been granted. SCOTUS Will be hearing the VanDerStok v. Garland case THIS term!

No clear word yet on the current injunction pending oral arguments, but I'm hoping no news is good news and think it would certainly be announced if they had decided to stay the current injunction(?)

I'm unclear if they didn't, meaning they won't be... or if they simply didn't rule on that part of the petition... yet(?)

If SCOTUS rules in our favor in this case, it will greatly undermine all the other alphabets unconstitutional rules of late where they have been relying on simply changing definitions to make new law.

Now if only the Nevada SC heard the impending news…

View: https://youtu.be/Q0bgG8ca7LA?si=Q0dcmiUutBMTYa9y

 

[Yarome]

Now if only the Nevada SC heard the impending news…

View: https://youtu.be/Q0bgG8ca7LA?si=Q0dcmiUutBMTYa9y

Didn't watch and don't know what portion of the law NV is suing them under, but if it's under the frames and receivers definitions... and it get's thrown out by SCOTUS... the whole NV case (and possibly some of the other states doing the same thing against them) will come tumbling down and poly80 might have a case to sue for restitution of legal fees, lost business and damages.

Possibly. But it sure would be funny as all get out if it plays that way.

 

[PiratePast40]

Funny you should bring this up. I've been trying for months to get a response from house leadership about their donation to the lawsuit, but Helfrich has refused to give any kind of answer. Same with Breese-Iverson who was the minority leader at the time. Both seem happy to send me requests for campaign donations, but don't want to hear about commitments they've made.

Don't bother asking caucus leadership either. I've been told that they weren't leadership at the time the promise was made, so they know nothing about members standing in front of the capitol for a photo with the $25,000 check for the lawsuit against HB2005.

Tired of hearing about this? Maybe some other people can jump into the fray and ask the legislators that were elected by the people, and given money to represent them, what happened to the $25k.

 

[Yarome]

Maybe some other people can jump into the fray and ask the legislators that were elected by the people, and given money to represent them, what happened to the $25k.

Well... from the sounds of it... you've been getting the exact same level of responsiveness that I've been getting too. Many won't even make any direct reference to my actual question or topic. Just a canned, "I feel strongly about 'this or that' and will continue to fight for the rights of Oregonians" blah, blah, blah... and not a single "specific" about anything.

Empty rhetoric.

 

[PiratePast40]

Last Monday, Brian Boquist was at the bi-monthly coffee klatch. When I asked him about it, he told me not to feel bad, leadership doesn't talk to the members either.

I believe we deserve better.

 

[arakboss]

Doh!

 

[nammac]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/22/supreme-court-will-take-up-the-legal-fight-over-ghost-guns-firearms-without-serial-numbers.htmlhttps://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/22/supreme-court-will-take-up-the-legal-fight-over-ghost-guns-firearms-without-serial-numbers.html

Dead link, already…

Errr…. Looks like a double link post…

Try this:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/22/supreme-court-will-take-up-the-legal-fight-over-ghost-guns-firearms-without-serial-numbers.html

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Dead link, already…

Try this one

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/22/supreme-court-will-take-up-the-legal-fight-over-ghost-guns-firearms-without-serial-numbers.html

 

[bcp]

Garland v. VanDerStok - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Bruce

 

[arakboss]

I am glad they are taking it up but I would be lying if I said I have high hopes for a good decision from them. Although they didn't require serial numbers back in the 1700s so who knows.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I am glad they are taking it up but I would be lying if I said I have high hopes for a good decision from them. Although they didn't require serial numbers back in the 1700s so who knows.

All the way up to 1934, no firearms required serial numbers, and it was up to manufacturers to put serials solely for inventory control/keeping but not for govt to track. Then from 1934 to 1968, only the NFA items required serial numbers to be registered with government, and to be transferable. After 1968.. all firearms manufactured or sold through FFLs and from companies, needed serial numbers for transfers and tracking purposes (not necessarily registration other than NFA items) but personal made/privately made firearms never needed serialization.