National Scotus bump stock oral arguments tomorrow (Cargill)

[ilikegunspdx]

He didn't link anything, just tells us? I'm looking for like a direct link to whatever Roberts, and the other 3 liberal Justices have written so we can figure/ see if Roberts really wrote something on our side or not.

Because if he wrote a wishy washy/vague opinion, that means there is still the potential for a 5-4 decision either way.

I don't know anything about how they work but I get the impression from the video (fwiw) that's its simply a housekeeping update. Fe there must be a tally sheet where they update the case status (Fe opinions received from x, y, x). They probably release all the opinions with the case ruling.

The reason I say this is if the opinions were available then mark smith would be doing 2.5 million videos on every alarming sentence in them. All just WAG as I don't know how they work. But 5/23 is a date on their calendar for updating opinions it looks like.

Maybe there is more info here (I didn't read it)

FAQs: Announcements of orders and opinions - SCOTUSblog

FAQs: Announcements of orders and opinions - SCOTUSblog

www.scotusblog.com

calendar fwiw

SCOTUSblog

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

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Jcon268]

Forced reset trigger brought up again by atf lawyer. ATF lawyer says semi auto max is 180 rounds per minute, but actually 60. That's bs. 300 rpm is normal for fast firing an AR.

This is one of those "hey guys you know what we MEANT when we defined a machinegun, you know, it just meant shoots kinda fast!"
NOPE. The law is a double edged sword like that. It's black and white when they use it against us and it's black and white when we use it to defend ourselves. Try again ATF lawyer!

 

[Jcon268]

This thing is going to be close, but I think we will win! I don't care about the bump stock at all, nor do I care about the Forced Reset Triggers, BUT, I do care about the AFT and the Executive Admin making LAW by fiat, expressly against Congress, so this SHOULD be ruled as as separation of powers,, AND the AFT should loose this!

I actually care about FRTs because I think they've been the biggest F You to the ATF delivered by any one man so far. They were born out of necessity by them essentially taking the opportunity for most people to shoot a machine gun due to extremely high cost. In addition, some of the current FRT redesigns are also becoming more useful because they retain semi auto capability, making them less of a range toy to waste ammo which is probably how you and many others see them.

 

[evashlen]

Supreme Court rules against bump stock ban

Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks' ban is unlawful

The ban was imposed by the Trump administration after the accessory was used during the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[CamoDeafie]

Supreme Court rules against bump stock ban

Supreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks' ban is unlawful

The ban was imposed by the Trump administration after the accessory was used during the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.

www.nbcnews.com

"Alito, (snip) said Congress could act to ban the accessory."

I think Congress already tried and failed and that's why the Biden adminstration tried an end run around Congress?

Nevertheless, this statement is still rather concerning IMO. It leaves open the notion that even if it don't pass the Bruen test, some gun control laws may remain in place.

Edit

Curious how this may affect the FRT case(s)...

 

[ilikegunspdx]

"Alito, (snip) said Congress could act to ban the accessory."

I think Congress already tried and failed and that's why the Biden adminstration tried an end run around Congress?

Nevertheless, this statement is still rather concerning IMO. It leaves open the notion that even if it don't pass the Bruen test, some gun control laws may remain in place.

Conservative judges seem to act on written law and not on emotions or what they think the answer should be personally. He is right. If they are to be banned Congress has to do it. Not the president and not atf. The legislative branch has to do it.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"Alito, (snip) said Congress could act to ban the accessory."

I think Congress already tried and failed and that's why the Biden adminstration tried an end run around Congress?

Nevertheless, this statement is still rather concerning IMO. It leaves open the notion that even if it don't pass the Bruen test, some gun control laws may remain in place.

Edit

Curious how this may affect the FRT case(s)...

Not that the Biden admin hasn't tried that, but this particular ban was from the Trump admin

 

[CamoDeafie]

Conservative judges seem to act on written law and not on emotions or what they think the answer should be personally. He is right. If they are to be banned Congress has to do it not the president and not atf. The legislative branch has to do it.

Yes, however like I said... there is the possibility that even if Fed/State gun control laws don't pass the Bruen test, SCOTUS may still say they're OK, as long as Congress and State Legislatures pass these laws as opposed to basically telling Congress that most gun control laws that deal with accessories, cosmetics, or functions of arms, or arms themselves, are no go.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The 6-3 ruling is extremely encouraging imo. Roberts was an unknown.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Not that the Biden admin hasn't tried that, but this particular ban was from the Trump admin

Speaking specifically of Congress, most of whom were around during Trump's term.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The 6-3 ruling is extremely encouraging imo. Roberts was an unknown.

That, was rather surprising, yeah.

 

[lucusloc]

Conservative judges seem to act on written law and not on emotions or what they think the answer should be personally. He is right. If they are to be banned Congress has to do it. Not the president and not atf. The legislative branch has to do it.

And then that ban has to go through constitutional court review, which if we are honest it cannot pass, but since we have not challenged anything NFA post Bruen that has not been established as plain precedent yet.

 

[CamoDeafie]

And then that ban has to go through constitutional court review, which if we are honest it cannot pass, but since we have not challenged anything NFA post Bruen that has not been established as plain precedent yet.

Pistol brace ruling? That seems to be the only one heading to SCOTUS eventually. Possibly also the FRT case(s).

Edit. Mock V Garland in 5th District Fed Court of Appeals, Judge struck down and vacated the brace ruling; seemingly nationwide, yesterday. No doubt the .gov team on Garland side will appeal, either en banc review or SCOTUS, not 100% sure where its at on the procedural steps between the Judge decision and SCOTUS arguments/hearings if granted.

 

[lucusloc]

Pistol brace ruling? That seems to be the only one heading to SCOTUS eventually. Possibly also the FRT case(s).

I don't think the pistol brace thing will implicate the NFA. It will just dictate a clearer line on where the demarcation point between NFA and not-NFA is. If we want a direct challenge to NFA we would have to challenge the rules on SBRs/SBSs directly.

But that is just an opinion. The court could go "the pistol brace rule is irrelevant because the NFA tax on SBR/SBS is unconstitutional" but I think that ruling is extremely unlikely.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Bump braces to be released in 3...2...1...

 

[CamoDeafie]

If we want a direct challenge to NFA we would have to challenge the rules on SBRs/SBSs directly.

That'd require someone(s) to risk violating NFA, arrested, and trials, and then have deep enough pockets or enough support from 2A groups to sue ATF/Congress and challenge the NFA... which.. I highly doubt is going to happen even with all the "illegal" switches going around because the 2A groups seem allergic to litigating on behalf of career crimimals

But that is just an opinion. The court could go "the pistol brace rule is irrelevant because the NFA tax on SBR/SBS is unconstitutional" but I think that ruling is extremely unlikely.

Agreed that its extremely unlikely... but stranger things have indeed happened like this 6-3 decision.

Perhaps when the pistol brace case get to SCOTUS, the Justices send a clear message to Congress in another 6-3 decision that Congress has to be the ones to amend/modify NFA laws to cover what they want to cover... and then leave the NFA challenge to the next group of people.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Trump banning bump stocks reminder. I'm not posting this for political reasons. Posting because executive branch cannot create law and direct ATF to ban stuff. Bump stocks aren't important. Stopping atf overreach is what's important. Chevron deference will be coming down soon also. All imo.

View: https://youtu.be/s-DChrnr4Po?si=BWfQ4xUJkkDgMzqO

 

[Yarome]

Pistol brace ruling? That seems to be the only one heading to SCOTUS eventually. Possibly also the FRT case(s).

Edit. Mock V Garland in 5th District Fed Court of Appeals, Judge struck down and vacated the brace ruling; seemingly nationwide, yesterday. No doubt the .gov team on Garland side will appeal, either en banc review or SCOTUS, not 100% sure where its at on the procedural steps between the Judge decision and SCOTUS arguments/hearings if granted.

That's not the only case. There are several that are currently being "held" by SCOTUS. Basically in limbo under the assumption that there will be language established in the Rahimi case that will have direct impact on the others. If so, then it's likely several of those other cases will be remanded back to the appropriate courts for re-evaluation under the new language established in Rahimi.

That's based on the fact that it's exactly what they did when Bruen was pending. Held over some cases, Bruen was decided, then those cases that were being held over were remanded back to the appropriate jurisdictions to be reconsidered under Bruen.

 

[Yarome]

I don't think the pistol brace thing will implicate the NFA. It will just dictate a clearer line on where the demarcation point between NFA and not-NFA is. If we want a direct challenge to NFA we would have to challenge the rules on SBRs/SBSs directly.

But that is just an opinion. The court could go "the pistol brace rule is irrelevant because the NFA tax on SBR/SBS is unconstitutional" but I think that ruling is extremely unlikely.

Yeah. And it's important to also note that the pistol brace ruling did not address the 2A challenge. It was purely the APA challenge that sunk it so there was no cause for further examination for any implication under the 2A.

As such, there's no bearing toward something like an NFA challenge.

 

[lucusloc]

That'd require someone(s) to risk violating NFA, arrested, and trials, and then have deep enough pockets or enough support from 2A groups to sue ATF/Congress and challenge the NFA... which.. I highly doubt is going to happen even with all the "illegal" switches going around because the 2A groups seem allergic to litigating on behalf of career crimimals

I believe a lower court has vacated that requirement. If I remember correctly it was one of the state suppressor laws (texas maybe?) where the government made the argument that there was no standing unless the law was already violated, and the circuit court said that was stupid and the plaintiffs only had to express an intent to violate the law and that the threat of legal action preventing them from doing that was enough to grant standing. But I may be remembering the details wrong because I cannot remember the case the verify.

But yeah, logically speaking if you do not do something solely because it is against the law that should be enough to get you standing to challenge the law.

Agreed that its extremely unlikely... but stranger things have indeed happened like this 6-3 decision.

Perhaps when the pistol brace case get to SCOTUS, the Justices send a clear message to Congress in another 6-3 decision that Congress has to be the ones to amend/modify NFA laws to cover what they want to cover... and then leave the NFA challenge to the next group of people.

I would prefer to just get a modern ruling on the NFA itself. The precedent that decided the NFA was constitutional is outside the rational of even modern gun control laws, let alone consistency with Bruen. A ruling that homogenized that old precedent with modern jurisprudence would be appreciated no matter what way the ruling went.

(the NFA was held to be constitutional because the firearms it covered were deemed to have no military use, and the 2nd only covered weapons of military utility. Modern gun control rational dictates that military weapons are are outside the scope of the 2nd, and only "civilian" arms are protected.)