Read ‘em and weep:
5 Likes
I read through page 18 and it appears to have been put up, accepted and argued by design with intent to be ruled as it was which is…pffft, dreamily fits best without using more derogatory terms, controlling substantive rights by commerce is still an infringement, some wiggle room is left but on its face it’s erosive to the 2A, constitution itself and the spirit of America.
Arguing terms
(c) The plaintiffs’ arguments about the linguistic differences between subsections (A) and (B) and potential unintended consequences under the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unpersuasive.
but not much else
The plaintiffs dispute little of what we have said.
lead to a ruling as a starter gun is subject to control due to being converted to fire a projectile in an hour, then Polymer80 which can be done in 21 minutes was equally subject.
As I read if a kit takes longer than an hour then its not subject to ATF oversight, Polymer80 advertised buy-build-shoot, likely some youtuber made one in the 21 minutes as claimed, so, too much exuberance lead to the fight?
2 hour buy build shoot kits coming soon to a store near you?
4 Likes
It seems like SCOTUS jumped on the plaintiffs calling it a “facial” Constitutional challenge, and said that as long as one fitting application exists, the rule can stand. If we just didn’t call it a “facial” challenge, and stuck to the requested remedy of setting aside the rule in toto based on the APA, we might have won. As it was, the justices supposedly felt a duty not to invent arguments not proffered by the litigants.
This is terrible. It allows the agencies to broaden definitions, even ones made by Congress, so long as there is any overlap at all between the old definition and the new. It will always survive a facial challenge.
The terminology arguments about colloquial usage which SCOTUS accepted look crazy, especially next to Thomas’s dissent and the precedents he cites about statutory interpretation. Congress could have included incomplete frames or receivers in clause B the way they did in all the other clauses A, C and D. Since they did not do so, precedent says to assume that this was intentional and on purpose. If Congress excluded unfinished frames and receivers, so must the ATF. But SCOTUS didn’t do that. They said, because B calls everything in A a weapon even when unfinished, an unfinished frame or receiver equals a firearm, which doesn’t follow.
Then there was also a clear effort on the part of the ATF to circumvent the limitations Congress put on them. Rather than give a clear methodology in their rule that anybody could follow, ATF said they would also subjectively consider the other parts, tools, jigs and even marketing materials distributed together with the unfinished frame. But as the 5th Circuit said, a part cannot simultaneously be a frame and not a frame at the same time. Even the ATF changed its mind about this and previously said the unfinished frame was fine; how can the same item become not ok just because of other things in the box?
6 Likes
Agreed
My guess is the “kit” makes it a readily made weapon, individual 80% frames not part of a kit, not readily makeable, like having an auto sear with an operational AR creates intent, selling a “kit” may be readily made intent 
6 Likes
Its just showing us how left alot of the supreme court really is.
5 Likes
Good analysis from you both. Here’s my take on the case:
-
In Loper Bright vs. Raimondo, the Sup Ct ruled that the courts would interpret the laws and would no longer give deference to federal agencies to interpret laws passed by Congress. Loper Bright struck down the longstanding Chevron deference courts gave to agency interpretations of laws (and presumably of rule making as delegated by Congress). Many mistakenly thought this meant the end of rule making by federal agencies and that it was open season on challenging federal regulations. This Bondi v. Vanderstok suggests the Loper Bright case is not as wide-ranging as many thought since the Sup Ct clearly upheld the ATF’s rule and did so with a whopping 7-2 majority, reversing the 5th Circuit (the most conservative circuit court of appeals and one of the most frequently reversed).
-
Both the lower district court and the 5th Circuit ruled against the government (ATF). The government appealed to the Sup. Ct. This is very telling because the Trump Administration could’ve easily withdrawn its appeal on January 20th and allowed the 5th Circuit’s ruling to stand. In fact, the Trump Administration withdrew an environmental case against a neoprene facility accused of polluting air emissions: Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Dismisses Suit Against Denka, Delivering on President Trump’s Mandate to End Radical DEI Programs | United States Department of Justice . So it’s not as if the Trump Administration had no choice.
-
Why didn’t the Trump Administration withdraw its appeal? As some may recall from a previous post, my suspicion is that the Trump Administration and Republicans overall do not want to strengthen 2nd Amendment rights as much as their political base would like because their political base is made up of masses of common folk whose interests do not necessarily align with the wealthy and corporate elite. The interests of the wealthy and corporate elite understandably want to retain their status, wealth, power and influence. Arming common folks could risk the status quo and put in jeopardy the wealth and power enjoyed by the wealthy and corporate elite if the masses ever decide to revolt by force. Yes, I know that sounds like class warfare, but the French Revolution and Lenin’s Bolsheviks are classic historical examples of class warfare that could happen when wealth and income disparity gaps widen too much.
-
Will the majority Republican Congress do something about this case? They certainly have the political votes to do so, or at least theoretically they do. One or two Republican members may introduce legislation overturning this decision and repealing ATF’s regulation. But again, I’m skeptical that even if such legislation is introduced Congress will ever vote on it, thereby letting this ruling stand.
5 Likes
With BONDI at the top of that I also had wondered the same 
It’s so convoluted it leaves room but as the SC doesn’t simply take cases it’s more likely they’ll use it to not hear similar cases.
It’s great you are even aware of those examples, but, we are dealing with a mass hypnosis, a mental illness, example
and by no means isolated, the people are so easily lead by 60htz and opinions they’re given, despite Trumps best effort I just don’t see it as enough, the problem is like spoiled children who are not disciplined, which in a free country is a difficult problem to overcome, everyone has:
choice, yet so many seem to proxy that choice to politically correct opinions that appose freedom and prosperity for all.
How can we have anything other than
?
3 Likes
You just said it all right there. Thsts why we cant get no justice and why the constitution is trampled on cause its one against all the rest.
2 Likes
Weak Spirits Weak Minds
2 Likes
I think it’s partly because Congress has yet to approve Trump’s appointment for Solicitor General, John Sauer. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer; the Solicitor General argues cases before SCOTUS. It’s also partly because Bondi has been bogged down with defending Trump’s EOs and the vast reorganizations of the the executive branch.
Also, to be honest, I would have expected SCOTUS to give a much better ruling and set a good precedent, like it did in Bruen, EPA, Dobbs and Cargill. Even the Rahimi decision was pretty good, since its holding undercut Red Flag laws and reaffirmed text-first and tradition methodology. Strategically, it was arguably a reasonable risk to let the case go to SCOTUS, for the benefits it could yield us nationwide in limiting government agencies if gun builders won.
3 Likes
Well, if all we lost were kits and I can still get 76% frames I’m good for now
4 Likes
That’s a good point, but here’s an example of the Trump Administration dropping the defense of litigation in another case recently:
So with or without a politically appointed Solicitor General, the Solicitor General’s Office does have Sarah Harris as the Acting Solicitor General who apparently decided to drop the SEC case but not the ATF case. My guess is that none of these actions take place without White House approval. The White House has liaisons who help with communications between heads of agencies (such as ATF, SEC, etc.,) and the White House itself. The ATF case is one of high media interest and interest to one of Trump’s most loyal base - gun rights activists. To me, it is very telling that this case continued to proceed after January 20 and was not dropped like the others. It’s possible, though, that the Trump Administration thought defending ghost guns would be politically unpopular by a majority of the country, even though many of gun rights activists believe that ATF’s rule is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. But given that this is Trump’s second term, and therefore he does not have to be concerned with reelection, I would think he wouldn’t care, unless maybe it might also serve to be as a disadvantage to the Republican Party and the next Republican presidential candidate? I don’t know, and I admit I could be completely wrong about my skepticism regarding Trump’s and the Republican party’s view of the 2nd Amendment.
4 Likes
Like bump stocks?
Expendable to him, continued erosion for us?
Look at the EU, full blown 1984 in progress, and no self defense.
The attack is not on guns, its on people.
Just as guns saves lives, lack of guns costs lives
3 Likes