bump stock cert petition filed in Codrea/Guedes

wolfwood · Aug 29, 2019

we filed a joint request for Supreme Court review (known as a writ of certiorari) in the two bump stock case that were filed in D.C. today. Please take a look.

https://www.scribd.com/document/423702764/Codrea-Cert-Pet-final-PDFA

Doctor_M · Aug 29, 2019

Go get 'em. God bless.

danb · Aug 29, 2019

It's a good cert petition. But that means it has about a 0.5% chance since there is not circuit split or other major reason to resolve this question.

ironpony · Aug 30, 2019

I am wondering why an infringement on any Right would not be considered by SCOTUS ... but don't want to know the answer.

Good work wolfwood, keep us informed.

rambling_one · Aug 30, 2019

ironpony said:
I am wondering why an infringement on any Right would not be considered by SCOTUS ... but don't want to know the answer.

Good work wolfwood, keep us informed.

It is a perplexing.

BlueHeeler · Aug 30, 2019

Excellent.

I do not see how the decision could not be accorded Chevron deference. ATF officially and correctly determined bumpstocks are not machine guns. It is a dangerous situation if the government can change the definition of words and make otherwise law abiding people into criminals.

DivingDriver · Aug 30, 2019

Quick work Wolf ! Thanks for letting us know about the 2a fight in the courts. Sometimes it can get a little frustrating out here in the trenches.

Knuckle Dragger · Dec 19, 2019

Distributed for Conference of 01/10/2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-296.html

This will be interesting because a majority of the justices have signaled that they're open to reviewing Chevron (or Auer, etc.) They passed on Gundy last term because, I think, it was a criminal case more specifically about sex-offender registration. Guedes is a much more clear cut example of the administrative state run amok.

wolfwood · Dec 19, 2019

We filed our reply brief in our bump stock petition. Our conference is Jan 10th for the Supreme Court to decide whether it takes the case.

https://www.scribd.com/document/440416213/Codrea-and-Guedes-Cert-Pet-Reply-Final-PDFA

aireyc · Jan 13, 2020

Case relisted for next conference (this Friday).

press1280 · Jan 13, 2020

aireyc said:
Case relisted for next conference (this Friday).

So this case is not following the path of other 2A cases apparently.

The relist has me intrigued. I didn't see this coming.

danb · Jan 13, 2020

aireyc said:
Case relisted for next conference (this Friday).

I did not see that coming, but my first thought is a dissent from denial.

aireyc · Jan 13, 2020

press1280 said:
So this case is not following the path of other 2A cases apparently.

The relist has me intrigued. I didn't see this coming.

This isn't really a 2A case.

ETA: I would expect this to be a dissent from denial merely because of the politics of any decision that goes our way. For that reason alone I'd assume this isn't the best vehicle to make any ruling on the Chevron deference.

danb · Jan 13, 2020

aireyc said:
This isn't really a 2A case.

ETA: I would expect this to be a dissent from denial merely because of the politics of any decision that goes our way. For that reason alone I'd assume this isn't the best vehicle to make any ruling on the Chevron deference.

Maybe, but the wildcard is that the appeals court applied Chevron deference to a criminal statute even though the government disavowed it. Its egregiously wrong. If not a dissent, a per curiam or GVR would be my next guess.

esqappellate · Jan 15, 2020

danb said:
Maybe, but the wildcard is that the appeals court applied Chevron deference to a criminal statute even though the government disavowed it. Its egregiously wrong. If not a dissent, a per curiam or GVR would be my next guess.

I don't see a GVR, as there is not another case that would provide the basis for a GVR. A per curiam summary reversal or vacating is possible because the government concedes that the D.C. Circuit was wrong in relying on Chevron. But that's a bit of a long shot too, as the underlying question (Chevron) is too important to resolve summarily. The Gov. is in a tough position here, urging denial of cert while conceding that the basis of the decision was dead wrong. But a summary reversal could still leave undecided the underlying and important question of whether the AFT rule was legislative and hence prospective only (as the D.C. Circuit held) or an interpretative rule, as the government contends (which means that bumpstocks have *always* been illegal even while the ATF expressly oked them -- that makes a hard case for the government, given its retroactive and ex post facto effects). The government's position is indefensible. The question is will the Court care enough to intervene to set the DC Circuit (and the gov.) straight (it is bumpstocks after all). That all said, I am elated that the Court relisted the case, as that is typically the first sign that someone on the Court is interested. Most cases in which cert is granted are first relisted at least once, often more. I'll start worrying about a dissent to a denial after the 3d relist. Importantly, the petition for cert. does not ask the Court to resolve the legality of the bumpstock rule, only whether the DC Cir erred in applying Chevron deference to a statute with criminal and civil applications. That is a really important question on which members of the Court have previously opined as important. The Court has already ruled that there is NO Chevron deference given agency interpretations of purely criminal statutes. A statute can't mean one thing in civil cases and something else in criminal cases. That's crazy. So, I am going to go out on a limb and predict a cert grant. The Court will appoint an amicus to defend the D.C. Circuit's ruling.

Doctor_M · Jan 15, 2020

I love you guys, and I'm not a complete idiot, but can someone please translate this into English? Just bottom line what does it mean for our side.

press1280 · Jan 15, 2020

Doctor_M said:
I love you guys, and I'm not a complete idiot, but can someone please translate this into English? Just bottom line what does it mean for our side.

It means now that the case was relisted there's a real possibility that the bump stock rule may get struck down, albeit on technical grounds and not on the 2A.

danb · Jan 15, 2020

esqappellate said:
The Court has already ruled that there is NO Chevron deference given agency interpretations of purely criminal statutes. A statute can't mean one thing in civil cases and something else in criminal cases. That's crazy. So, I am going to go out on a limb and predict a cert grant. The Court will appoint an amicus to defend the D.C. Circuit's ruling.

If there is already precedent that no Chevron deference is given for purely criminal statutes, could that not form the basis for a GVR? or maybe a per curiam to reinforce this principal?

Doctor_M · Jan 15, 2020

press1280 said:
It means now that the case was relisted there's a real possibility that the bump stock rule may get struck down, albeit on technical grounds and not on the 2A.

Thank you!

esqappellate · Jan 15, 2020

danb said:
If there is already precedent that no Chevron deference is given for purely criminal statutes, could that not form the basis for a GVR? or maybe a per curiam to reinforce this principal?

No, because there is footnote in Babbit that suggests that Chevron applies in a mixed case. The bump stock statute is both civil and criminal. In pure criminal cases of more recent origin, the court has refused to apply deference. So, doctrinally, the Court's precedent is in a mess.

bump stock cert petition filed in Codrea/Guedes

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Certified Mad Scientist

dont be a dumbass

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

President, MSI

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Certified Mad Scientist

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics