Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

So maybe now since there are conflicting opinions on the AWB, the supreme court will take up the issue.

Nah. They’ll keep running from it like screaming little girls.

Source.

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.

TTAG is also covering this.

The case, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenges the Department of Justice’s 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.

At issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and overstepping their bounds by making laws instead of enforcing them.

That was, in fact, what the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled last November, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter. In the ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.

“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion. “But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”

The sad thing about all of this is that the judgment was made purely on procedural grounds. The FedGov violated the rules for promulgating new rules.

But the core issue here is the constitutionality of the FedGov regulating the self-manufacture of firearms to begin with. Self-manufacturing of firearms has a very long and respected tradition in America. And so it should remain. The founders wouldn’t have countenanced a law that forbade firearms manufacture and sales without the government knowing and approving.

If the supreme court refuses to tackle the issue of constitutionality, it will leave the door open to future attempt by Congress to pass such a law. This would then need yet another challenge in court, one much less likely to succeed than VanDerStok.

Source.

The Bay States’ already strict gun laws were made all the more stringent on Thursday when the governor signed sweeping new gun regulations into law, creating live fire requirements for new license holders, and banning most “assault-style firearms.”

A statewide registration system was also added among a broad range of other provisions.

Jim Wallace, the Executive Director of the Gun Owners Action League, told The Boston Herald that GOAL will challenge the law in court.

According to Gov. Maura Healey, An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws is meant to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which overturned state laws making it more difficult to obtain a firearms license, and as a reaction to the growing prevalence of so-called ghost guns.

As a response to Bruen, they tell the supreme court to sod off. They’ll do what they want to do.

And after similar laws in Maryland, Illinois and elsewhere, the supreme court is still running from the issue like scared little girls.

This is a bit off the beaten path, but that’s why you come here, right?

What’s the first thing tyrants do when they want to control people? I think you know. If you don’t want to watch the entire video, both of which are interesting, fast forward to 11 (eleven) minutes for both of them.

Prior: ISIS and Gun Confiscation

This is an awful exchange. First of all, the VA shouldn’t be in the position of removing of God-given rights.

Second, their refusal to obey congressional acts is treasonous.

Third, the entire thing has been misapplied. Having someone else do your finances for you includes deploying overseas and having no access to your bank accounts, thus the need to name someone in charge of fiduciary responsibilities.

It’s worth noting that much of this comes from the administration, not just the VA.

The VA doesn’t care about veterans. But you already knew that.

reddit/Firearms

FPC.

FORT WORTH, TX (June 13, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition announced a major legal victory in its Mock v. Garland lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s “pistol brace” ban rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In the decision, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs and issued a final judgment and order vacating the ATF’s rule. The case and opinion can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The decision can be found here.

It’s nice to see that some things still work in America.

James Reeves runs it down for you. We’ll have to wait and see.

This is just another front in the battle between controllers and free men.

The fight never stops. The controllers will never rest.

Most of the reasons he gives in this video amount to one thing: the justices have either sided with the controllers or aren’t happy with the nature of the ruling that would come down if the SCOTUS took the issues up.

Thus, they will allow the lower courts to beat them up over this issue and tell them they are wrong. Quite literally, the lower courts have bullied the supreme court into ignoring a major infringement of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It’s the most shameful thing I have ever witnessed as an American citizen in my entire life.

Source.

And here is Mark Smith to explain. But you know, it seems that the conservatives on the court are the only ones that have manners and refuse to consider cases that haven’t been fully decided in the lower courts.

As if that’s a requirement or something. Sotomayor apparently has no problem bossing the lower courts around on her own.

I still think it all comes down to rank cowardice.