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

[King Chicken]

....Maryland still says you can't have unmarked lowers am I right? This case above would have any possible future implications on MD but needs to go to Supreme Court or what?

So many different laws and cases I'm starting to get absolutely lost on this.

 

[teratos]

....Maryland still says you can't have unmarked lowers am I right? This case above would have any possible future implications on MD but needs to go to Supreme Court or what?

So many different laws and cases I'm starting to get absolutely lost on this.

Yes. A similar case will need to be heard by SCOTUS or the 4th Circuit to be binding in MD.

 

[Doctor_M]

Ghosts go BOOOOooo
Ghost guns go BOOOOmmm

I prefer the latter.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Ghosts go BOOOOooo
Ghost guns go BOOOOmmm

I prefer the latter.

An Elephant fart in a cave goes WOOOoommm

 

[King Chicken]

An Elephant fart in a cave goes WOOOoommm

A human farting inside of an elephant goes

 

[King Chicken]

Yes. A similar case will need to be heard by SCOTUS or the 4th Circuit to be binding in MD.

Ty. And um. Tell me when this might happen SIR?! can this happen within a couple years? No clue where things are w this. Ty

 

[pcfixer]

Yes. A similar case will need to be heard by SCOTUS or the 4th Circuit to be binding in MD.

SCOTUS possible-- IF-- US attorney general decision to push!!?? IDN
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!!!​

It's almost April. Us supreme court fall docket

 

[pcfixer]

VanDerStok v. Garland (4:22-cv-00691) District Court, N.D. Texas​

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

WE REALLY Need the WIN here! :prayer

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Some stuff going on with this case. Take a look at the link in above post.

 

[owldo]

Some stuff going on with this case. Take a look at the link in above post.

If I read it correctly plaintiffs appealed the case from the Northern District Federal Court to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ... the INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL kicks it to the full 5th circuit ... It appears plaintiffs didn't like this judge or some of his rulings ! Good news is if it is going to the 5th Circuit this circuit is overseen by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Maybe some legal eagles on here can correct me if I am wrong ?

 

[Blacksmith101]

Big win!

 

[pcfixer]

Yes BIG WIN.
VACATES the Final Rule on grounds that the agency acted beyond the scope of its legitimate statutory authorit

 

[babalou]

Big win!

and all the people who registered theirs....

 

[Combloc]

Were fools.

 

[trickg]

Maryland has its own laws regarding unserialized frames and lower receivers. How does this ruling affect that?

 

[jastengel]

This law has never made sense to me... hypothetically, you could call a rectangle of metal and a spool of plastic filament an unfinished PMF... those two parts would be just as capable of becoming a frame as a p80 kit since the metal rails and pins are non serialized parts.... and to go a step further, the rectangle of metal is the only part of the kit that is actually serialized... so hypothetically, if you break a polymer frame, you could remove the serialized rectangle, and insert it into an entirely different piece of plastic that assembles into some other design of frame, and you would (assuming it was in the same catagory, not a SMG or SBR or something) be perfectly within the law as written in Maryland.... I wonder how much a FFL would charge to etch serial numbers onto strips of steel? If a person wanted to experiment with FDM or SLA printed PMFs you could hypothetically keep reusing a strip until it is unrecognizable? could you harvest a serialized strip out of a junk polymer pistol? (like a fire-destroyed PSA Dagger)...
Does this change how people have to treat fire-damaged polymer frames? Obviously you can't just throw a broken frame away unless you destroy the serialized plate... And would having one of those serialized plates turned into a keychain as a remembrance of (hypothetically) a favorite, yet destroyed firearm in your pocket count as a concealed weapon? So many issues here.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of Maryland's ridiculous law.

 

[teratos]

Maryland has its own laws regarding unserialized frames and lower receivers. How does this ruling affect that?

It doesn’t.

The decision says ATF cannot make laws. In the case of MD, the legislature passed it. A separate lawsuit against the MD will need to be filed. If Bruen is applied, they will need to find historical prohibitions against homemade firearms. That will be impossible.

 

[pcfixer]

It doesn’t.

The decision says ATF cannot make laws. In the case of MD, the legislature passed it. A separate lawsuit against the MD will need to be filed. If Bruen is applied, they will need to fin historical prohibitions against homemade firearms. That will be impossible.

trickg said:
Maryland has its own laws regarding unsterilized frames and lower receivers. How does this ruling affect that?

So at what point will that law suit take place? @esqappellate

 

[[Kev308]]

It doesn’t.

The decision says ATF cannot make laws. In the case of MD, the legislature passed it. A separate lawsuit against the MD will need to be filed. If Bruen is applied, they will need to fin historical prohibitions against homemade firearms. That will be impossible.

So where does that leave the pistol brace ban?

 

[FrankZ]

It doesn’t.

The decision says ATF cannot make laws. In the case of MD, the legislature passed it. A separate lawsuit against the MD will need to be filed. If Bruen is applied, they will need to find historical prohibitions against homemade firearms. That will be impossible.

Not when they make them up from stitching together disparate sentences to find the words "No" and homemade" and "firearms" and "allowed."

They'll cheat I tell you, they will cheat.