Stolen by the ATF, that is.

David Codrea writing at Ammoland displays his bump stock, returned by the ATF (grudgingly, I’m sure).

The reason I obtained the stock in the first place was to establish standing for a legal complaint (I don’t even own a Ruger 10-22 rifle the stock is made for and never intended to use it). I’d originally joined in a lawsuit to force the issue to the Supreme Court. Ours was merged with another lawsuit, but ultimately, the Cargill case prevailed.

There is another important paragraph.

Now, until somebody declares them illegal again, it’s just some pieces of inert plastic joined together that wouldn’t even make a very good club. And that brings us to a particularly dangerous admission coming from some influencers on “our side,” who say ATF didn’t have the authority to ban them, but that Congress does. Reject that. There’s no clause in the Constitution delegating that authority or exempting them from the universal “shall not be infringed” mandate intended to be binding on all branches. Saying it was the purview of Congress was used in legal arguments to get the ban overturned– now that it has been, it’s time to stop saying it.

I agree. That was the basis for the victory in the supreme court, but it’s a shallow victory. Congress doesn’t have the authority to do that at all, and the case was decided on violation of administrative law. I hate it when that happens, because the constitutional question is always avoided. I see no sense at all in a court that can only address the question brought to it on the most narrow grounds. It makes no sense to me that they cannot also decide constitutionality.

I don’t have one and have never used one. However, it was clever to buy one in order to be part of the legal machinations surrounding this issue.

Very well done, David, even though Cargill was the case that ended this stupidity. I would have done it if I had thought about it.

By the way, David sent this photo to me (and others on a mailing list) before posting to Ammoland). This is a note to their editors, with whom I have had run-ins.

First up, Mark Smith gives his take. Mark always seems optimistic about things, and I fear that he may be projecting his own knowledge and honesty onto the supreme court justices. In this particular analysis, he goes into great depth on the games played in the fourth circuit. As I’ve said before, I have as much use for the fourth circuit as I do my toe jam.

I predict that the supreme court will allow the fourth circuit to get away with the disrespect and malfeasance.

Next up, there is James Reeves. He points out that there are other cases of AWB that were fully finished in appellate court that the supreme court refused to take up.

Thus, James is in my camp. The supreme court is running from this issue, and they have been for years. They want the second amendment to be something other than amelioration of tyranny, something palatable to the inside-the-beltway types. Even Scalia wanted that and bowed to the demands of the libs on the court.

The only legitimate justice on the court right now is Clarence Thomas. There are two others that I can think of who would make great justices: James Ho, and Don Willett. Only addition of men like these can every possibly bring back the court to its roots.

Eating crumbs that fall from the master’s table, like a stray dog.

Source.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons.

A majority of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges rejected gun rights groups’ arguments that Maryland’s 2013 law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Here is Mark Smith on the subject. I still predict the supreme court will find a way to run from the issue. Barrett will side with the women on the court, including Roberts.

Interesting and amusing video, but I would have preferred to see more done on the 1911 designs.

They didn’t seem to know that there is a difference between the Series 70 and Series 80 designs, as one of the comments note.

Frankly, I’m not sure they have the knowledge base to fully answer the question(s) on 1911, carry status, and various designs that keep it safe (e.g., Springfield Armory’s titanium firing pin design).

If any experts/gunsmiths would like to weigh in, please do so. I’d like to know what you think.

He shoots a CVA single shot in .444 Marlin. It looks like a powerful and accurate round to me.

By the way, one useful comment is found in the comments section.

“My preferred cartridge is the Hornady 265 gr. flat point. Unfortunately, the flat point is getting phased out in favor of the FTX. If you ever find the flat point ammunition on your dealer’s shelf, stock up. You will not regret it. The Hornady 265 gr flat point features a thicker copper jacket in comparison to typical .429 caliber bullets specifically designed to handle the additional velocity featured by the .444.”

I’m glad to see that I made a good choice.

The Minnesota supreme court set a precedent for duty to retreat.

Of course, this is ungodly and anti-Christian. God expects us to defend our lives and the lives of loved ones. The court is demanding that you do something that runs afoul of the law of God.

Speaking of things that are anti-Christian, one candidate for the presidency is demanding that you don’t honor his coming in the incarnation.

Unearthed clip of Kamala Harris scolds people for saying “Merry Christmas” because illegals might not get to celebrate: “HOW DARE WE SPEAK MERRY CHRISTMAS?” pic.twitter.com/zBq6hDX9l3

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) August 1, 2024

Everything is backwards. Darkness is light, and light is darkness.

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.

This note was sent to S&W sales, marketing and engineering.

To whom it may concern,

At my blog we’ve discussed the fact that Smith & Wesson has gotten into the lever action long gun market at long last.

We have noticed that this platform would be ideal for cartridges that are traditionally S&W cartridges, such as the 460 S&W magnum and the 500 S&W magnum.

Besides, at the moment the only way to obtain a rifle chambered in these cartridges is to purchase from Bighorn Armory.

It sure would be nice to see Bighorn Armory get some pricing competition in these calibers.

I would be interested in obtaining a rifle chambered for 460 S&W magnum, and would devote several posts to a review of said rifle.

Thank you for your consideration.

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.