Federal ghost gun regulations temporarily revived by Justice Alito

[platoonDaddy]

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

We are fvcked

Part are parts…. Doesn’t matter, ATF will win

 

[Fushigi Ojisan]

Vox explains it to the left

The Supreme Court just handed gun groups a rare defeat

The Court blocked a lower court order that would have made it easy for criminals to obtain so-called ghost guns.

www.vox.com

 

[FrankZ]

Vox explains it to the left

The Supreme Court just handed gun groups a rare defeat

The Court blocked a lower court order that would have made it easy for criminals to obtain so-called ghost guns.

www.vox.com

Well that was fair and balanced./

 

[Blacksmith101]

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.

Which justices and where did you see it?

 

[Inigoes]

Which justices and where did you see it?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080823zr_dc8f.pdf

 

[Allen65]

I just don't understand all the hand-wringing and drama on our side over this. Here's how I see it:

1. 5CA ruled in favor of a PI, using language that strongly indicates it will find against the ATF in any final appellate decision.

2. SCOTUS has a stay on the PI in place, but it's due to procedural issues, not some deeper constitutional meaning. And that stay automatically expires the moment 5CA issues its final mandate in the case.

3. The issues being contested are statutory in nature, not constitutional; i.e. Did ATF violate the Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the frame and receiver regs?

4. It wouldn't be surprising for SCOTUS to not grant cert, because the case is about statutory, not constitutional questions.

5. And if they didn't ultimately grant cert to a FED appeal of a 5CA decision that's in our favor, it's a win for us, especially if the 5CA decision is national in scope, which it appears to be how 5CA is leaning.

Lots of folks are getting wrapped around the axle over PI and legal procedural issues. All that counts in the end is what final decision stands. And it looks like that final decision in this case will be against regulatory overreach and in our favor.

 

[Lafayette]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080823zr_dc8f.pdf

My reading comprehension is not very good. I read that last line as those four justices would deny the stay (as in leave the injunction on the ATF rule in place) but the other five wanted to grant it.

 

[teratos]

I just don't understand all the hand-wringing and drama on our side over this. Here's how I see it:

1. 5CA ruled in favor of a PI, using language that strongly indicates it will find against the ATF in any final appellate decision.

2. SCOTUS has a stay on the PI in place, but it's due to procedural issues, not some deeper constitutional meaning. And that stay automatically expires the moment 5CA issues its final mandate in the case.

3. The issues being contested are statutory in nature, not constitutional; i.e. Did ATF violate the Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the frame and receiver regs?

4. It wouldn't be surprising for SCOTUS to not grant cert, because the case is about statutory, not constitutional questions.

5. And if they didn't ultimately grant cert to a FED appeal of a 5CA decision that's in our favor, it's a win for us, especially if the 5CA decision is national in scope, which it appears to be how 5CA is leaning.

Lots of folks are getting wrapped around the axle over PI and legal procedural issues. All that counts in the end is what final decision stands. And it looks like that final decision in this case will be against regulatory overreach and in our favor.

Thank you for chiming in.

 

[Inigoes]

My reading comprehension is not very good. I read that last line as those four justices would deny the stay (as in leave the injunction on the ATF rule in place) but the other five wanted to grant it.

Those four justices agree with the initial judgement. If the judgement remains the same after a court of appeals decision, do not look for the 4 justices to change their minds.

This is temporary setback where the SCOTUS is trying to keep cases off their Shadow Docket (deciding a case before the arguments mature) and let the appeals process run its course.

 

[whistlersmother]

My reading comprehension is not very good. I read that last line as those four justices would deny the stay (as in leave the injunction on the ATF rule in place) but the other five wanted to grant it.

4 would have denied cert on the PI, 5 would have granted cert on the PI. That doesn't necessarily indicate how those 5 would ultimately decide on the PI.

Those 4 have shown their hand that the PI should not be stayed which, to me, indicates how they think about the merits also.

We shall see.

 

[pcfixer]

This is definitely on SCOTUS radar

 

[Boxcab]

I read it as... "We are watching, seriously watching. "

The "timeliness" comments are important as well.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[whistlersmother]

I read it as... "We are watching, seriously watching. "

The "timeliness" comments are important as well.


.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Too bad SCOTUS doesn't force the hand of 4CA delay in MD AWB case... From the other thread, sounds like the decision is being held hostage by one anti-2A emotional judge.

 

[Blacksmith101]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/080823zr_dc8f.pdf

"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."

You are reading the linked order incorrectly. Those 4 Justices would grant certiorari. They voted against allowing the stay of the injunction to remain in place.

 

[platoonDaddy]

Does this mean, u need a FFL to purchase parts?

The original biden ATF rule in my opinion was worded very ambiguously. The way I understood it was that you had to go through a FFL if you purchased a "Kit" to make a firearm. The definition of Kit was not well stated, but appeared to be an incomplete lower with a jig or other mechanism to convert it. Still now sure though, and even the mfg. were unsure. That was probably intentional on the part of ATF so they could trap folks.

 

[delaware_export]

Feds file for cert at scotus

 

[King Chicken]

Feds file for cert at scotus

File a whoowhat? Layman explanation?

 

[delaware_export]

Feds lost in 5th circuit. They are asking Supreme Court to hear the case

File a whoowhat? Layman explanation?

 

[King Chicken]

Feds lost in 5th circuit. They are asking Supreme Court to hear the case

What did they lose ? What is frame or receiver rule? Ty

 

[Allen65]

What did they lose ? What is frame or receiver rule? Ty

ATF's redefinition of "frames and receivers" to kill off 80% sales by calling something that could be made into a receiver, a receiver, along with kits that include all the parts needed to assemble a firearm using an 80% frame or receiver.