ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert

[VTski4x4]

FPC announced that Garland vs VanDerStok has been granted cert.

Supreme Court Takes Up FPC, FPCAF Lawsuit Challenging ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule

Today, the United States Supreme Court granted review in Attorney General Merrick B. Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok, a Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden’s “frame or receiver” rule implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol...

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[pastera]

A right delayed is a right denied - only 14 months to get a resolution to this one.
The questions are so narrow that there will likely be a inconsequential win for us (or a horrific loss)

 

[VTski4x4]

A right delayed is a right denied - only 14 months to get a resolution to this one.
The questions are so narrow that there will likely be a inconsequential win for us (or a horrific loss)

I'll just be happy if SCOTUS reinforces the fact that the ATF can't make laws (not that states care anymore what SCOTUS says).

 

[pastera]

I'll just be happy if SCOTUS reinforces the fact that the ATF can't make laws (not that states care anymore what SCOTUS says).

The states do care - they just take advantage of the loose wording and ridiculously narrow tailoring that SCOTUS uses to get 5+ votes.
Caetanto is a clear "you F'd up" and how for Mass since it was unanimous - however, it didn't actually further define the limits that Scalia alludes to in Heller, it only tells Mass that their interpretation was wrong.
It is in the concurrence where only Thomas and Alito are sufficiently bold to excoriate the inferior court's obvious FU to SCOTUS' clear holdings in Heller.
What is needed is for the court to elevate the Caetano concurrence's dicta to holding with the same (or greater) distain that Alito writes in that same concurrence.

 

[VTski4x4]

The states do care - they just take advantage of the loose wording and ridiculously narrow tailoring that SCOTUS uses to get 5+ votes.
Caetanto is a clear "you F'd up" and how for Mass since it was unanimous - however, it didn't actually further define the limits that Scalia alludes to in Heller, it only tells Mass that their interpretation was wrong.
It is in the concurrence where only Thomas and Alito are sufficiently bold to excoriate the inferior court's obvious FU to SCOTUS' clear holdings in Heller.
What is needed is for the court to elevate the Caetano concurrence's dicta to holding with the same (or greater) distain that Alito writes in that same concurrence.

Lol they don't give a shit. Look at Hawaii right now. Their Supreme Court said Hawaiians don't have 2A rights and that Bruen is wrong. Zero push back from SCOTUS on that.

 

[pastera]

Lol they don't give a shit. Look at Hawaii right now. Their Supreme Court said Hawaiians don't have 2A rights and that Bruen is wrong. Zero push back from SCOTUS on that.

SCOTUS cannot push back - they require a request for cert, period.
Hawaii knows that it can play their game NOW and is hoping that they win the lottery with two new democrat justices in the next four years.
And read the opinion, Hawaii is very careful in their wording - they don't say that SCOTUS got the US Constitution wrong. They say that Hawaii's State constitution is similar and that they interpret their own constitution to allow the infringements and that Bruen allows for licensing therefore the defendant can't apply Bruen since he didn't apply for a permit that at the time couldn't be issued to him. They state he would have to be denied to have protection under Bruen. And Bruen, nor any other 2a SCOTUS case, covers that exact question.

 

[Coyote33]

Wait, yet ANOTHER RULE?

NRA-ILA | ATF Skirts Legal Formalities and Springs Another Gun Control Rule on the American People

On Friday, ATF provided the unpleasant surprise of yet another rulemaking to implement the noxious Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

www.nraila.org

 

[whatluck]

SCOTUS cannot push back - they require a request for cert, period.
Hawaii knows that it can play their game NOW and is hoping that they win the lottery with two new democrat justices in the next four years.
And read the opinion, Hawaii is very careful in their wording - they don't say that SCOTUS got the US Constitution wrong. They say that Hawaii's State constitution is similar and that they interpret their own constitution to allow the infringements and that Bruen allows for licensing therefore the defendant can't apply Bruen since he didn't apply for a permit that at the time couldn't be issued to him. They state he would have to be denied to have protection under Bruen. And Bruen, nor any other 2a SCOTUS case, covers that exact question.

That is some real mental gymnastics right there. Evil.

 

[T-Unit]

Lol they don't give a shit. Look at Hawaii right now. Their Supreme Court said Hawaiians don't have 2A rights and that Bruen is wrong. Zero push back from SCOTUS on that.

Gotta wonder how much fear the Justices have that the FBI or other Deep State intelligence agencies will blackmail them or put kiddie porn on their computers. It would explain why so many of their rulings are so narrow and vague.

 

[pastera]

That is some real mental gymnastics right there. Evil.

The gymnastics is what being a good litigator is all about - other that some recent diversity hires, all of the higher court justices are extremely talented litigators.

But Hawaii does us a favor here if we can get it before SCOTUS with the proper questions.
One of which should be:
When a State's constitutional protections of an enumerated right closely follows the federal Constitution, can a state interpret that right to be narrower than that of the federal constitution or may that state's interpretation only widen protection of an enumerated right?

And I would love to have this answered:

Are government actors liable for actions taken under their incorrect assertions to the plain meaning of laws and higher court rulings if their assertions are contrary to a plain reading of the controlling law or higher court opinion as interpreted by a person of average intelligence?

I would love to see questions of law put before a jury plainly asked "what is the plain interpretation of this text as you understand it" and if the government acted differently then they are stripped of immunity.