What's new
By:
Filters

SCOTUS takes up "Frames & Receivers" case

Poke said:
What is the rule they are challenging?
Click to expand...
ATF released a rule interpreting the Federal definition of Frame or Receiver to include partially completed frames and receivers, aka 80% lowers. They said they are no different then a serialized frame and receiver and that you must transfer them as such. It was struck down by the 5th circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court.
 
Texas97 said:
Judge Abena Darkeh should lose her job, and her law license. among other consequences for violating the defendants constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

In a sane world that would happen. But in this one?
 
Toreadorranger said:
ATF released a rule interpreting the Federal definition of Frame or Receiver to include partially completed frames and receivers, aka 80% lowers. They said they are no different then a serialized frame and receiver and that you must transfer them as such. It was struck down by the 5th circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
So is it gonna turn out like bumpstocks and braces? Just never address it again?
 
Levigarrett76 said:
So is it gonna turn out like bumpstocks and braces? Just never address it again?
Click to expand...
No, it's pretty likely this gets upheld and the Feds lose another gun control case. With the current make up of the Court it's unlikely the Feds are going to win any gun control cases. There's probably no better time than now to not comply with any ATF bullshit, odds have never been higher of a case reaching the SCOTUS and being overturned.

But, the communists will just keep ignoring the Court and use any cases that don't go their way as rhetoric. Feds intentionally didn't push the brace case to the SCOTUS because it's pretty much guaranteed that the SCOTUS would have upheld the lower court ruling that an agency can't just change rules whenever it suits them and the Feds don't want to open Pandora's Box with that because it opens up legal challenges to basically the entirety of how the Federal government is run now.
 
Motorcharge said:
No, it's pretty likely this gets upheld and the Feds lose another gun control case. With the current make up of the Court it's unlikely the Feds are going to win any gun control cases. There's probably no better time than now to not comply with any ATF bullshit, odds have never been higher of a case reaching the SCOTUS and being overturned.

But, the communists will just keep ignoring the Court and use any cases that don't go their way as rhetoric. Feds intentionally didn't push the brace case to the SCOTUS because it's pretty much guaranteed that the SCOTUS would have upheld the lower court ruling that an agency can't just change rules whenever it suits them and the Feds don't want to open Pandora's Box with that because it opens up legal challenges to basically the entirety of how the Federal government is run now.
Click to expand...
When they tire of loosing, they’ll pull the “climate emergency” card out.
 
Motorcharge said:
No, it's pretty likely this gets upheld and the Feds lose another gun control case. With the current make up of the Court it's unlikely the Feds are going to win any gun control cases. There's probably no better time than now to not comply with any ATF bullshit, odds have never been higher of a case reaching the SCOTUS and being overturned.

But, the communists will just keep ignoring the Court and use any cases that don't go their way as rhetoric. Feds intentionally didn't push the brace case to the SCOTUS because it's pretty much guaranteed that the SCOTUS would have upheld the lower court ruling that an agency can't just change rules whenever it suits them and the Feds don't want to open Pandora's Box with that because it opens up legal challenges to basically the entirety of how the Federal government is run now.
Click to expand...
Makes sense

Anyone know if the damned things are legal to own or not now? Braces or bunpstocks?
 
Texas97 said:
Judge Abena Darkeh should lose her job, and her law license. among other consequences for violating the defendants constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Whale, SCOTUS permits states to make up their own rules and the NY and NYC rules are 'no way, Jose'.

So in that sense she is correct.

The problem is that states can make up their own rules. This case is a limit on that.
 
plym49.2 said:
Whale, SCOTUS permits states to make up their own rules and the NY and NYC rules are 'no way, Jose'.

So in that sense she is correct.

The problem is that states can make up their own rules. This case is a limit on that.
Click to expand...

wut?

a state cannot make a law that violates the constitution. its as simple as that.
 
plym49.2 said:
Of course they can't.

But it is done all the time.

Ever hear of a carry permit? The infringement happens all the time.

SCOTUS has hidden behind 'tradition' on this as an excuse.
Click to expand...

Has anyone brought a case about permits since bruen?
 
87manche said:
Has anyone brought a case about permits since bruen?
Click to expand...
I’d like to, talked to a 2a lawyer for 5min. He was under the opinion an earlier SCOTUS decision that states could regulate OC or CC, but not both without infringing would stop a challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh