Challenges to ATF “Ghost Gun” Final Rule (ATF 2021R-05) Megathread

[swinokur]

Great information on the "Gun Banning" issue ... but it has nothing to do with the issue of UN-serialized guns ? Unless I missed something !

Seemed as good as any to put it. Please feel free to repost it somewhere else.

Or not

 

[pcfixer]

Great information on the "Gun Banning" issue ... but it has nothing to do with the issue of UN-serialized guns ? Unless I missed something !

See my post #23 https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/13/plain-text/

quote: Rigby v. Jennings (2022). That court got it right in holding that the Second Amendment "protects the possession of untraceable firearms and unfinished firearms and receivers because its text covers the possession of firearms."

Quote:
Fortunately, the plain text analysis is not difficult because the Supreme Court has already defined the key terms of the guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Here are some of those definitions:

• "The people" facially means "all Americans." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
• "Arms" facially means "all instruments that constitute bearable arms."
• "Keep Arms" facially means "have weapons." Heller.
• "Shall not be infringed" facially means that the right conferred by the Second Amendment is an "unqualified command." Bruen.

 

[pcfixer]

12/23/22

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1672264045/VanDerStok_v_Garland_145_Blackhawk_MSJ.pdf?1672264045

V. VACATUR IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY

Not signed or acted on by the Judge. YET- Judge Reed O'Conner.

 

[owldo]

See my post #23 https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/13/plain-text/

quote: Rigby v. Jennings (2022). That court got it right in holding that the Second Amendment "protects the possession of untraceable firearms and unfinished firearms and receivers because its text covers the possession of firearms."

Quote:
Fortunately, the plain text analysis is not difficult because the Supreme Court has already defined the key terms of the guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Here are some of those definitions:

• "The people" facially means "all Americans." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
• "Arms" facially means "all instruments that constitute bearable arms."
• "Keep Arms" facially means "have weapons." Heller.
• "Shall not be infringed" facially means that the right conferred by the Second Amendment is an "unqualified command." Bruen.

Thanks !

 

[Bob A]

12/23/22

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1672264045/VanDerStok_v_Garland_145_Blackhawk_MSJ.pdf?1672264045

V. VACATUR IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY

Not signed or acted on by the Judge. YET- Judge Reed O'Conner.

I was intrigued by one sentence in the appeal:

"This provision is one of multiple provisions in the Final Rule that are beyond the ken of a person of ordinary intelligence to determine what conduct is regulated or prohibited and is therefore unconstitutionally vague."

On one hand, this would seem to impact any number of laws, especially Maryland's seemingly deliberate utilisation of vagueness and obfuscation in its lawmaking.

It also opens the door to discussion of "ordinary intelligence" and the consequences following from the deterioration of the public school system. Private organisation whose purpose is to quantify such concepts, e.g. the College Board, have repeatedly loosened the standards by which they accomplish such standardisation, in order to maintain a semblance of fitting their changing results into a Gaussian (bell) curve. The consequences implied would have an interesting effect on the application of the sentence in question.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[owldo]

I was intrigued by one sentence in the appeal:

"This provision is one of multiple provisions in the Final Rule that are beyond the ken of a person of ordinary intelligence to determine what conduct is regulated or prohibited and is therefore unconstitutionally vague."

On one hand, this would seem to impact any number of laws, especially Maryland's seemingly deliberate utilisation of vagueness and obfuscation in its lawmaking.

It also opens the door to discussion of "ordinary intelligence" and the consequences following from the deterioration of the public school system. Private organisation whose purpose is to quantify such concepts, e.g. the College Board, have repeatedly loosened the standards by which they accomplish such standardisation, in order to maintain a semblance of fitting their changing results into a Gaussian (bell) curve. The consequences implied would have an interesting effect on the application of the sentence in question.

Or so it seems to me.

The "Ruling Class" wants the general population dumb ed down to the lowest common denominator so they can baffle us with their Liberal Concepts and their verbose use of vernacular bull shit ... IMO

"the College Board, have repeatedly loosened the standards by which they accomplish such standardization, in order to maintain a semblance of fitting their changing results into a Gaussian (bell) curve." It's called "Social Equity" or CRT ...

 

[85MikeTPI]

It is getting to the point where I am ignoring new rules by the ATF as they will immediately be ruled unconstitutional anyway. May as well just disband the organization at this point.

There’s still the Alcohol and Tobacco to regulate

 

[Bob A]

There’s still the Alcohol and Tobacco to regulate

And Explosives!!

 

[pcfixer]

I was intrigued by one sentence in the appeal:

"This provision is one of multiple provisions in the Final Rule that are beyond the ken of a person of ordinary intelligence to determine what conduct is regulated or prohibited and is therefore unconstitutionally vague."

On one hand, this would seem to impact any number of laws, especially Maryland's seemingly deliberate utilisation of vagueness and obfuscation in its lawmaking.

It also opens the door to discussion of "ordinary intelligence" and the consequences following from the deterioration of the public school system. Private organisation whose purpose is to quantify such concepts, e.g. the College Board, have repeatedly loosened the standards by which they accomplish such standardisation, in order to maintain a semblance of fitting their changing results into a Gaussian (bell) curve. The consequences implied would have an interesting effect on the application of the sentence in question.

Or so it seems to me.

Agreed 100% Bob. I read the whole paragraph. Just simply brilliant plain English that cuts to the heart of the matter.

Clearly here....B. The Final Rule Infringes on the Exercise of Second Amendment Right

quoted.
Consequently, the Final Rule’s regulatory promulgations were justified on the basis of a legal theory that has been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court’s controlling Second Amendment jurisprudence and is therefore “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B).

FPC and the 2 lawyers who signed this "Brief for Summary Judgemet"... All did in my humble opinion superb writing to show Rule should be vacated entirely. And to say..AMEN. meaning ...so be it!

 

[Kharn]

Polymer 80 v Garland docket, no useful info yet but from the clickbait Youtubers, it is Polymer 80 suing the Attorney General over the Final Rule and the 27 December letter declaring P80s to be firearms by name.


P80's complaint, 45 pages.

 

[pcfixer]

Polymer 80 v Garland docket, no useful info yet but from the clickbait Youtubers, it is Polymer 80 suing the Attorney General over the Final Rule and the 27 December letter declaring P80s to be firearms by name.


P80's complaint, 45 pages.

​

Same Judge - Reed C O'Connor and looks like same docket. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 - CourtListener.com

Docket for VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[pcfixer]

What happened to the Original thread? Before DC-W made a megathread.

City of Syracuse v. Bureau of Alcohol, 1:20-cv-06885-GHW | Casetext Search + Citator

Read City of Syracuse v. Bureau of Alcohol, 1:20-cv-06885-GHW, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

City of Syracuse v. Bureau of Alcohol, 1:20-cv-06885-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2021)
I think original document from Poly80.

Case 1:20-cv-06885-GHW Document 119 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 15

 

[pcfixer]

We should track this.

City of Syracuse, NY v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 1:20-cv-06885 - CourtListener.com

Docket for City of Syracuse, NY v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 1:20-cv-06885 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[pcfixer]

Also here....https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/federal-judge-grants-injunction-blocking-enforcement-of-atfs-frame-or-receiver-rule/

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-02-Injunction.pdf

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion in part and ORDERS that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined from implementing and enforcing against Defense Distributed and its customers (except for those individuals prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12 that the Court has preliminarily determined are unlawful.

BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary Injunction Granted Against ATF's Ghost Gun Rule!!!​

Guns & Gadgets
Verified

 

[Mark75H]

We should track this.

City of Syracuse, NY v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 1:20-cv-06885 - CourtListener.com

Docket for City of Syracuse, NY v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 1:20-cv-06885 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

Dismissed as moot, nothing to follow

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) All Parties and without costs pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by City of Syracuse, NY, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, City of San Jose, CA, City of Chicago, IL, City of Columbia, SC.

 

[pcfixer]

UPDATE: GOA v. ATF Frames & Receivers Heard By 8th Circuit​

Reply Brief

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/8th-Cir-Reply-Brief-on-Frame-and-Receiver-Rule.pdf

 

[Kharn]

 

[pcfixer]

Now expand to 4th Circuit.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Here is Guns and Gadgets take on the above PI:

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Love it. BRUEN working overtime on a Sunday. See attached.