Federal ghost gun regulations temporarily revived by Justice Alito

[pcfixer]

MSN

Search

 

[pcfixer]

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Inigoes]

The clock is ticking...

Alito acted alone because he has jurisdiction over the lower court involved in the dispute. In the brief order Alito asked for a response from challengers to the regulation by August 2 and suggested the full Supreme Court will rule by August 4.

 

[Afrikeber]

Probably an intentional setback to demonstrate Alito is reasonable. I believe the end result will be in favor of 2A position.

 

[Boxcab]

That is a quick turnaround time. So by the end of this week we should have an answer?

Is this the Supreme's showing the lower courts how the 2A should be treated? The 2nd is not to be delayed, postponed, or compromised.

Talk the talk... walk the walk.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Alito having an insecurity attack

 

[Afrikeber]

…….and in the interim Alito tells the Legislative Branch they have no authority over the Supreme Court so go away…..

Alito says Congress has ‘no authority’ to regulate Supreme Court

Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democ…

thehill.com

 

[pcfixer]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274235/20230729073311409_Vanderstok%20DC%20amicus.pdf

Answer. Heller, McDonald, Bruen
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of meansend scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command".

dicta #3
3Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms. See post, at 1–9 (opinion of BREYER, J.). The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions”

14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
Opinion of the Court

under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid. Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scrutiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the intermediate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States now urge us to adopt.
Edited:
From this and what AG Garland (ATF) rules will not pass constitutional muster.
Prayer for relief is to uphold the "VACATE"
file this brief as amici curiae in support of applicants and their request for an emergency stay of the district court’s vacatur of the Final Rule at issue. See Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, 479). Amici States’ “dominant interest” in “preventing violence . . . cannot be questioned. It is a matter of genuine local concern.”

 

[Allen65]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274235/20230729073311409_Vanderstok%20DC%20amicus.pdf

Answer. Heller, McDonald, Bruen
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of meansend scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command".

dicta #3
3Rather than begin with its view of the governing legal framework, the dissent chronicles, in painstaking detail, evidence of crimes committed by individuals with firearms. See post, at 1–9 (opinion of BREYER, J.). The dissent invokes all of these statistics presumably to justify granting States greater leeway in restricting firearm ownership and use. But, as Members of the Court have already explained, “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions”

14 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN
Opinion of the Court

under means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid. Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scrutiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the intermediate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States now urge us to adopt.
Edited:
From this and what AG Garland (ATF) rules will not pass constitutional muster.
Prayer for relief is to uphold the "VACATE"
file this brief as amici curiae in support of applicants and their request for an emergency stay of the district court’s vacatur of the Final Rule at issue. See Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, 479). Amici States’ “dominant interest” in “preventing violence . . . cannot be questioned. It is a matter of genuine local concern.”

IIRC SCOTUS only addresses Constitutional issues when a case can't be decided on statutory or common law grounds alone. In VanDerStock, though, the courts don't even need to touch the 2A issue to overrule ATF's new rule. 5CA found ATF exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the rule, so the rule can be disposed of without anyone needing to address 2A issues. It's a win for us at every level because it helps reign in regulatory overreach in general.

 

[pcfixer]

IIRC SCOTUS only addresses Constitutional issues when a case can't be decided on statutory or common law grounds alone. In VanDerStock, though, the courts don't even need to touch the 2A issue to overrule ATF's new rule. 5CA found ATF exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the rule, so the rule can be disposed of without anyone needing to address 2A issues. It's a win for us at every level because it helps reign in regulatory overreach in general.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok I'll be looking tor the brief written by FPC.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Mods might want to merge this thread with:

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

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

Making this thread to capture all of the inevitable challenges to the ATF rule on the definition of frames or receivers and firearms. Read the final rule here...

www.mdshooters.com

Since it was started back in May of 2022.

 

[pcfixer]

Search

. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, August 2, 2023, by 5 p.m. (EDT).

​

Should be from FPC/ 2A foundation. Maybe GOA

 

[pcfixer]

So. What Next?

final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691,

are hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, August 4, 2023.

 

[Fushigi Ojisan]

What the left is thinking

A new Supreme Court case could allow criminals to get guns without background checks

The fight over "ghost guns" arrives on the Court’s shadow docket.

www.vox.com

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

 

[TheBert]

What the left is thinking

A new Supreme Court case could allow criminals to get guns without background checks

The fight over "ghost guns" arrives on the Court’s shadow docket.

www.vox.com

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

And that changes the criminals current ability to get guns now without background checks?

 

[pcfixer]

OH BOY!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274235/20230729073311409_Vanderstok%20DC%20amicus.pdf

The Final Rule, Which Complements State Efforts To Regulate Unserialized Firearms, Promotes The Public Interest. Preserving the Final Rule pending further judicial review is in the public interest, and vacatur would irreparably harm Amici States and their residents. Absent federal regulation, unserialized firearms have flooded Amici States’ communities. Many of these weapons end up in the hands of people banned from gun ownership, directly undermining the GCA’s core provisions as well as state law.

They know full well this ^^^^^^ doesn't mean shit.

 

[LeadSled1]

Well let’s take a look at the GCA since they want to go down that route….

 

[pcfixer]

Search

. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, August 2, 2023, by 5 p.m. (EDT).

​

Should be from FPC/ 2A foundation. Maybe GOA

Aug 08 2023

Application (23A82) for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The June 30, 2023 order and July 5, 2023 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, insofar as they vacate the final rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (April 26, 2022), are stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application for stay.

 

[AssMan]

Supreme Court allows continued regulation of so-called 'ghost guns'

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration and will temporarily allow the government to regulate so-called "ghost guns" that can be made from kits at home.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Inigoes]

Supreme Court allows continued regulation of so-called 'ghost guns'

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration and will temporarily allow the government to regulate so-called "ghost guns" that can be made from kits at home.

www.foxnews.com

Foxnews is sensationalizing the content. The SCOTUS is allowing the appeal process to work.

However, 4 justices have gone on record for not granting certiorari.