Sure, here's a simpler explanation:
"No, they haven't made a final decision yet. This is just a temporary decision while the case is still going on. The Supreme Court rarely gets involved in these early stages of a case."
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
7th Circuit AR15 "not protected"
- Thread starter VTski4x4
- Start date
"No, they haven't made a final decision yet. This is just a temporary decision while the case is still going on. The Supreme Court rarely gets involved in these early stages of a case."
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
Yeah, Chicago libs are driving that circuit clown car. I am pretty sure there are a lot of folks in southern Illinois that would like to get off at the next stop as well.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 24,081
- Likes
- 30,250
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Apparently now Illinois has gone full retard and is requiring people to possess LTC's and register.......movie props.
SCOTUS should have added the 3 cases they GVR'd to Bruen, and then they could
have stopped a lot of the BS the States and Lower courts are throwing a tantrum over.
They also need to put some Teeth in to the Rulings to stop the Politicians and
Legislatures from infringing our Rights again.
Malodave
have stopped a lot of the BS the States and Lower courts are throwing a tantrum over.
They also need to put some Teeth in to the Rulings to stop the Politicians and
Legislatures from infringing our Rights again.
Malodave
Mesatchornug
NES Member
That would've been cool.
It's also not in keeping with their conservative nature. Making narrowly tailored decisions is part of how they historically maintained faith in the system.
Adding "teeth" is hard when they don't have the power of enforcement, by design.
Like so many have said, this process is slow and painful while we're in it. It's also the principled path to lasting change. It's how things went during the civil rights movement and we shouldn't be surprised by the same here.
so i see a lot of fuming about the new law 7th circuit just created out of the thin air - so, now what? it will have to be some actual case with a convicted person, where it is going to be used, in order to make it in 5-7 years into the scotus hearing?
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,742
- Likes
- 2,528
The decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but IMO they are unlikely to intervene at this stage. So the case goes to trial with the ban in effect. At trial, for example, the plaintiffs can try to refute the assertion than semi-auto rifles are military weapons. After a verdict, it gets appealed back to the 7th circuit, most likely with the ban still in place. After that, it bounces to the Supreme Court. The Supremes dodged the Highland Park ban previously, but I suspect they’ll take this one, consolidate it with cases from the 1st and 9th circuits and issue a decision in 2026. At that point, it depends on the composition of the court and on Roberts.
ChevyGuy91
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 22,932
- Likes
- 23,554
You surely can.
Damn the fifth circuit is on fire bros
View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1722734785800380623?s=20
www.firearmspolicy.org
View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1722734785800380623?s=20
FPC and FPCAF WIN: Fifth Circuit Vacates ATF’s Unlawful “Frame or Receiver” Rule
Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their favor, holding that portions of ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule are unlawful in VanDerStok v. Garland.
www.firearmspolicy.org
TG Pioneer
NES Member
I ran this through a web search.Yeah but how much of a military rifle was it early on? AR-15 was sent to ATF in 1963 for approval as a civilian rifle. 70 years ago.
BTW It's M16 not M-16, but it is AH-64 or C-130
$1,850.10
Adjusted for inflation, $189.50 in 1963 is equal to $1,850.10 in 2023.
Similar threads
