SCOTUS, if petitioned for certiorari
10th Circuit Bump Stock Argument
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
SCOTUS, if petitioned for certiorari
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
No it goes back to the District Court. The issue decided by the Circuit Court was about a preliminary injunction. The next step is to resolve the case on its merits if they choose to.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Distributed for Conference 1/7/2022
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html
I don't have high hopes for an injunction since the SCOTUS is trying tamp down the shadow docket.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Keep in my folks, this case will be decided over Chevron Defference. NOT on the 2A of Bump Stocks.
Even if we win based on Chevron Defference, if a state bans bump stocks, or congress comes back and bans bump stocks, a whole new fight will begin again on other factors. Chevron Defference will have little to no effect on a state banning bump stocks.
Even if we win based on Chevron Defference, if a state bans bump stocks, or congress comes back and bans bump stocks, a whole new fight will begin again on other factors. Chevron Defference will have little to no effect on a state banning bump stocks.
Even if it doesn't have a direct effect, reigning in Chevron and Auer Deference will have a wide-ranging effect on a variety of legal issues, and hopefully reign in the Regulatory State from unilaterally extended executive authority. If SCOTUS eventually takes up the deference issue and puts significant limits on it, the effects will be very consequential across almost every aspect of regulatory law, possibly the most consequential decision in the decade. If SCOTUS eventually takes it on, anyway.
Hopefully the OSHA vax mandate will help this case.
Practically the same principle. A government agency makes a new regulation, treating it as if was a law passed by congress.
Practically the same principle. A government agency makes a new regulation, treating it as if was a law passed by congress.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Rescheduled…
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
P.Z. v. New Jersey was denied without comment today (21-175) so clearly something is up with this case.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
And at direction of the President when he might not have been able to get his agenda through Congress.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
Well there are several cases pending with SCOTUS that have allready been argued that touch to some degree on the questions of Chevron Defference. How those cases are decided may also have an impact on these Bumb Stock cases, as well as Ghost Guns, and few others.
You are correct, it will have an effect on all governmental agencies overreach on criminal regulation for sure.
I am just point out though, that if a state or our federal congress were to pass actual laws banning bump stocks, litigation would have to be restarted.
At least on a state level, I see if the ATF looses due to Chevron Defference, we will have a few stats attempt to ban using state law.
Texasgrillchef
Active Member
PZ is gun seizures… I can understand why it was denied. I’m not surprised. There are issues with that case that don’t make it clear cut.
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
Jan 14 2022 Rescheduled.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
Distributed for the next conference 21 Jan
Kharn
Ultimate Member
IIRC "rescheduled" means a Justice pulled the case from consideration before that week's conference, usually because they're not ready to discuss or they're still working on getting the votes for cert.
Cases marked rescheduled multiple times aren't an indicator for dissent from denial of cert like normal multiple distributed for conference notices are.
Cases marked rescheduled multiple times aren't an indicator for dissent from denial of cert like normal multiple distributed for conference notices are.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
I am guessing Gorsuch is working hard to get this granted. It is rescheduled again. The next conference is not until 18 Feb so it is unlikely to be distributed for another conference until Valentines day.
camo556
Ultimate Member
- Aug 29, 2021
- 2,634
Another reschedule.
For shits and giggles, I searched, I only found one other case this term that has been "rescheduled."
My first guess would be a Per Curiam Opinion, held for the opinion in another case, or a dissent from the denial of cert. None of those are usually marked "rescheduled." Usually. It is clearly being held for something.
In past terms, I found a few cases marked rescheduled that eventually got granted. Also at least one denial.
For shits and giggles, I searched, I only found one other case this term that has been "rescheduled."
My first guess would be a Per Curiam Opinion, held for the opinion in another case, or a dissent from the denial of cert. None of those are usually marked "rescheduled." Usually. It is clearly being held for something.
In past terms, I found a few cases marked rescheduled that eventually got granted. Also at least one denial.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
The DC Circuit arguments on bump stocks are now 17 February.
The SC would either deny this case or hold it pending NYSRPA rather than wait for a ruling from the DC Circuit, unless a Justice wanted a sneak preview of the current administration's latest position under fire by rescheduling this case yet once more and reading that argument transcript.
The SC would either deny this case or hold it pending NYSRPA rather than wait for a ruling from the DC Circuit, unless a Justice wanted a sneak preview of the current administration's latest position under fire by rescheduling this case yet once more and reading that argument transcript.
