TRACT Optics

21-159 APOSHIAN v. GARLAND

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!
  • Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    The oral arguments for Guedes v ATF have not been held yet. They just got permission to change the oral argument date, but that date has not been set.

    The main case in the Fed Circuit is McCutchen v. US. Three Modern Sportsman v USA is identical to McCutchen. While these two cases are bump stock related, they are not disputing the regulations. They are simply making a 5A takings claim.

    It is Codrea, not Correa and this case is on hold pending resolution of McCutchen. It was being litigated alongside Guedes in the DC Circuit, but they moved to the Fed Circuit for appeal. I suspect they are moving forward with the takings claim, which is why they moved circuits and why it is on hold.

    Thanks for the update. Was a typo with stupid autocorrect with Codrea.

    I was just pointing out various cases filed, that’s all.

    While I fully agree with the takings clause and it being a violation. I just don’t believe the 5A reason of the Takings clause sadly won’t be enough to win this and get the bump stock ban overturn. I don’t see us winning sadly either based on the 2A reason as well. Sadly I think the only thing that will get it overturned is Chevron Defference.

    Which whole nice on the service, and would work in getting the law invalidated.

    The problem is, I’d that’s the reason. Congress could write new law to pass a law to ban bump stocks, if they do, Chevron Defference won’t work to invalidate the new law.

    We really need a case that wins based on the 2A and or 5A. But even if we win based on the 5A, it could still be banned. And not involve the 5A if you put in a grandfather clause.

    So if we want a true invalidation that will cover most anything, we need to win based entirely on the 2A
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,237
    McCutchen and Modern Sportsman both denied rehearing en banc

    https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1488942104600584197?s=21

    These cases are not really similar to Aposhian. While they all deal with the federal bump stock ban, they take different approaches and seek different remedies. Aposhian is trying to overturn the bump stock ban by arguing that the ATF exceeded its authority. These two cases (McCutchen and Modern Sportsman) are not trying to overturn the ban and simply seek compensation for the bump stocks that they had to destroy.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    These cases are not really similar to Aposhian. While they all deal with the federal bump stock ban, they take different approaches and seek different remedies. Aposhian is trying to overturn the bump stock ban by arguing that the ATF exceeded its authority. These two cases (McCutchen and Modern Sportsman) are not trying to overturn the ban and simply seek compensation for the bump stocks that they had to destroy.

    The issue at hand with Aposhian, Is the issue with Chevron Defference. That’s where they are basing ATF exceeding their authority.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    46,384
    SoMD / West PA
    They are trying to push it off until a couple of other cases get closer and settled, or until they can issue a ruling in another case that makes use of the Chevron Defference. Which another case that they heard is kinda revolving around as well

    That outcome would be a refreshing change.

    I am hoping it's not the usual denial with a strongly worded dissent.
     

    camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    That outcome would be a refreshing change.

    I am hoping it's not the usual denial with a strongly worded dissent.

    Denials don't get the "rescheduled" label. Very few cases get that label.

    At the same time, cases that are being held for another case often don't get the "rescheduled" label on the docket either.

    The "rescheduled" label on the docket appears special.

    Dobbs is one of those cases that got the reschedule label multiple times like this (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html), and it was granted.

    It may end up being nothing. Last time I looked at the docket a few weeks ago, there were not that many cases "rescheduled." Now I see quite a few with the label. All of them look cert worthy. They might just be setting it aside until they get through all the other high profile stuff they have on their plate.

    Or they may be exchanging memos and rewording the question.

    Most of the cases I brought up with the "rescheduled" label were granted so I am leaning that way.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    Denials don't get the "rescheduled" label. Very few cases get that label.

    At the same time, cases that are being held for another case often don't get the "rescheduled" label on the docket either.

    The "rescheduled" label on the docket appears special.

    Dobbs is one of those cases that got the reschedule label multiple times like this (https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html), and it was granted.

    It may end up being nothing. Last time I looked at the docket a few weeks ago, there were not that many cases "rescheduled." Now I see quite a few with the label. All of them look cert worthy. They might just be setting it aside until they get through all the other high profile stuff they have on their plate.

    Or they may be exchanging memos and rewording the question.

    Most of the cases I brought up with the "rescheduled" label were granted so I am leaning that way.

    So what’s your take on cases that are “on hold” by scotus. Such as the two cases of Young v Hawaii and ANJRPC v Bruck. Both on hold since September 2021.

    Young makes sense because it’s a permitting case similar to NYSPRA v Bruen. The other is over a magazine capacity ban.

    Is that second case, that really makes me believe that they will say something about Scrutiny in the NYSPRA case. But that’s just my unproffesional opinion! Lol
     

    camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    hasnt been rescheduled yet - still on for conference of Friday.

    Sometimes the docket takes two days to update; however last time it was rescheduled the same day.

    Curiously, Thursday and Fri are also opinion days.
     

    camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    After watching the below video on the 9-0 case Wooden v US about the armed career criminal statute, I'm wondering if they'll boot this case back on the rule of lenity.

    https://youtu.be/Kbs7cGtORu0

    Wooden opinion by Kagan

    Unlikely. See Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. Rule of lenity did not get 5 votes. Gorsuch has the more compelling argument of course (see III of his concurring opinion), but his view did not prevail.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas

    Considering that two other cases are “on hold” since September and haven’t been on a rescheduling spree, it makes me wonder why they have rescheduled this case so many times versus putting it on hold. Knowing that a decesion is eminent in the NYSPRA v Bruen case.

    All I can say is something is up. They could have easily just denied cert the first time around.

    I am wondering if they want to grant cert, but only after they issue an opinion in the Bruen case.

    However this case deal with Chevron a Defference those most. NOT on the constitunality of bump stocks.

    There is at least one case I believe over an issue with healthcare that is dealing with Chevron Defference as well. So it’s very possible this case is waiting on that issue.

    Hopefully we do win this case. But even if we win… it will limit ATF on how they interpret various rules etc and how they are implemented.

    Understand… that even if we win this case, states and even our federal congress could still make a law banning bump stocks. At that point we will have to challenge the law on the constitutionality of bump stocks.

    Hard to second guess SCOTUS though.
     

    camo556

    Active Member
    Aug 29, 2021
    2,634
    Considering that two other cases are “on hold” since September and haven’t been on a rescheduling spree, it makes me wonder why they have rescheduled this case so many times versus putting it on hold. Knowing that a decesion is eminent in the NYSPRA v Bruen case.

    All I can say is something is up. They could have easily just denied cert the first time around.

    I am wondering if they want to grant cert, but only after they issue an opinion in the Bruen case.

    However this case deal with Chevron a Defference those most. NOT on the constitunality of bump stocks.

    There is at least one case I believe over an issue with healthcare that is dealing with Chevron Defference as well. So it’s very possible this case is waiting on that issue.

    Hopefully we do win this case. But even if we win… it will limit ATF on how they interpret various rules etc and how they are implemented.

    Understand… that even if we win this case, states and even our federal congress could still make a law banning bump stocks. At that point we will have to challenge the law on the constitutionality of bump stocks.

    Hard to second guess SCOTUS though.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-459.html

    I was starting to think it would be granted because its rare to see "rescheduled" on the docket and those that did were granted. The above is an example were we got a opinion respecting the denial of cert Mar 7th after many reschedules.

    I am now thinking someone is writing something (e.g. a dissent or opinion respecting denial), and simply has not had time to finish it because the court has a lot of high profile cases this term.
     
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-459.html

    I was starting to think it would be granted because its rare to see "rescheduled" on the docket and those that did were granted. The above is an example were we got a opinion respecting the denial of cert Mar 7th after many reschedules.

    I am now thinking someone is writing something (e.g. a dissent or opinion respecting denial), and simply has not had time to finish it because the court has a lot of high profile cases this term.

    They could also be writing a per Curiam opinion as well. That’s not totally out of the question either.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    264,584
    Messages
    6,804,402
    Members
    31,181
    Latest member
    dfrance

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom