2nd Amendment updates
- Thread starter belvedere
- Start date
Belve.....have you ever seen or heard of this? I came across it looking for something else.
publicleadershipinstitute.org
Firearms Arsenal Disclosure Act - Public leadership Institute
Summary: The Firearms Arsenal Disclosure Act requires individuals to disclose to law enforcement when they personally own an unusually large number of firearms and applies to them the recordkeeping, safe storage and other requirements that apply to licensed firearms dealers. … Continue reading →
publicleadershipinstitute.org
I had heard of that, but as far as I know it never made it to a vote or at least in the US Congress. It or some version of it may have made it is some of the communist states. I saw the whole bill at some point and one of the main reasons it never saw the light of day was not because it was unconstitutional but because it didn't have a prescribed penalty for the violation for it. It's like this stupid piece of crap they hung on our permitless carry law. They added a provision in there we now have a "responsibility to respond" if we are stopped and asked by a LEO if we have a "weapon" in the vehicle. Before they did this we could tell him to go pound sand. Now if we don't answer or lie to the cop we can be arrested for " not responding" but there is no penalty for it, so about the only thing a judge can do is sentence you to go home and watch Okra and eat peanut butter.
New York to Block Sale of Glock Pistols?
Discover the concerns surrounding the sale of certain pistols in New York. Learn about the debates over the potential ban on Glock handguns.
A Ninth Circuit panel Thursday ruled that a blanket prohibition on convicted felons possessing firearms violates their Second Amendment rights, at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence.
In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions and was later sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for being a “felon-in-possession.”
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, said the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen requires that the government shows that there is a historical tradition that supports the categorical prohibition on defendants such as Steve Duarte possessing a firearm.
This, according to the judge, the government failed to do because there was no analogous law at the time of the Founding Fathers that someone like Duarte would have been deprived of their right to bear arms. In fact, the judge said, his offenses would have been considered misdemeanors rather than felonies or not even have existed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“We do not base our decision on the notion that felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms,” Bea wrote, noting that as a matter of policy the blanket prohibition may make a great deal of sense. But, citing preceding decisions, the judge said “the very enumeration of the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Bea in the majority opinion.
U.S. District Judge Milan Smith Jr., another George W. Bush appointee, dissented and said that Supreme Court’s Bruen decision didn’t invalidate existing Ninth Circuit law on the issue but in fact reiterated “that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.”
Thursday’s ruling is a shift in Ninth Circuit law, and it differs from the view adopted by many circuits, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles. However, it’s similar to what the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit decided last year in Range v. Attorney General, according to The majority opinion left open the possibility that felons convicted of violent crimes could still be prohibited from owning firearms after they served their sentence.
In the case of felonies that in the 18th and 19th centuries were traditionally punished with with death, forfeiture of the offender’s estate or a life sentence, Bea said, we might “venture to assume it settled that these offenses were of a kind the Founding generation thought serious enough to warrant the permanent loss of the offender’s Second Amendment right.”
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which defended Duarte’s conviction before the Ninth Circuit panel, declined to comment on the ruling.
However, according to Volokh. federal prosecutors are likely to ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc review of the decision, where all the judges of the Ninth Circuit will hear the case.
“That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court’s Rahimi case, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the court by June 30,” Volokh said. “The question in Rahimi and the question in this case aren’t identical, but they share considerable similarities.”
In a split decision, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions and was later sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for being a “felon-in-possession.”
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee, said the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen requires that the government shows that there is a historical tradition that supports the categorical prohibition on defendants such as Steve Duarte possessing a firearm.
This, according to the judge, the government failed to do because there was no analogous law at the time of the Founding Fathers that someone like Duarte would have been deprived of their right to bear arms. In fact, the judge said, his offenses would have been considered misdemeanors rather than felonies or not even have existed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries.
“We do not base our decision on the notion that felons should not be prohibited from possessing firearms,” Bea wrote, noting that as a matter of policy the blanket prohibition may make a great deal of sense. But, citing preceding decisions, the judge said “the very enumeration of the Second Amendment right in our Constitution takes out of our hands the power to decide for which Americans that right is really worth insisting upon.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Bea in the majority opinion.
U.S. District Judge Milan Smith Jr., another George W. Bush appointee, dissented and said that Supreme Court’s Bruen decision didn’t invalidate existing Ninth Circuit law on the issue but in fact reiterated “that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens.”
Thursday’s ruling is a shift in Ninth Circuit law, and it differs from the view adopted by many circuits, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles. However, it’s similar to what the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit decided last year in Range v. Attorney General, according to The majority opinion left open the possibility that felons convicted of violent crimes could still be prohibited from owning firearms after they served their sentence.
In the case of felonies that in the 18th and 19th centuries were traditionally punished with with death, forfeiture of the offender’s estate or a life sentence, Bea said, we might “venture to assume it settled that these offenses were of a kind the Founding generation thought serious enough to warrant the permanent loss of the offender’s Second Amendment right.”
The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which defended Duarte’s conviction before the Ninth Circuit panel, declined to comment on the ruling.
However, according to Volokh. federal prosecutors are likely to ask the Ninth Circuit for an en banc review of the decision, where all the judges of the Ninth Circuit will hear the case.
“That review will probably be influenced by the Supreme Court’s Rahimi case, which deals with whether people subject to domestic violence restraining orders lose their Second Amendment rights, and which is due to come down from the court by June 30,” Volokh said. “The question in Rahimi and the question in this case aren’t identical, but they share considerable similarities.”
I'm not sure about this one. While I know several people who have had felony convictions for bullspit charges ? I somehow think they'll screw this up and put firearms back into the hands of violent offenders.
I also know that in Mo....You can get your gun rights back, IF you have enough money. Which is complete bullspit. Myself, I've been jailed twice for domestic violence. And to this day have never struck a woman. Both instances were over 2 decades ago. Both cases involved violent women. In both cases, charges were not filed. The new standard is to jail both parties involved. While this might be a bit more fair ? To have this turned into a revenue stream is a major concern.
On decriminalization of marijuana. Had a HEATED argument with one of She's kids over this. The overturning of previous convictions. Her view was that anyone convicted should be set free, my view ? BULLSPIT !! My reasons being.
1. It was illegal when they were busted. Just because it's legal now ? You were still breaking the law THEN.
2. LOOK at the amount of weed involved. If it was under 1 pound ? Yeah, I might go for that. But if you were trafficking ? HELL NO. This is why.
If you were trafficking in drugs ? It was for the MONEY. Which in effect means, When they get out, Most will start trafficking in something else. Financial gain is the motive.
My worry, Is this will be done in a typical government blanket style amnesty. This could very well bite us in the ass. When these people start committing crimes, They will now be counted as the law abiding citizen. And if not careful ? We, The L.A.B. (law abiding citizen) could get a statistical bite in the arse.
In Mo. Concealed carry requires NO training at all. I'm waiting for this to bite us in the arse. There are too many fools running around out there that DO NOT know the law for when and where they can use a firearm.
This deserves careful scrutiny.....
I also know that in Mo....You can get your gun rights back, IF you have enough money. Which is complete bullspit. Myself, I've been jailed twice for domestic violence. And to this day have never struck a woman. Both instances were over 2 decades ago. Both cases involved violent women. In both cases, charges were not filed. The new standard is to jail both parties involved. While this might be a bit more fair ? To have this turned into a revenue stream is a major concern.
On decriminalization of marijuana. Had a HEATED argument with one of She's kids over this. The overturning of previous convictions. Her view was that anyone convicted should be set free, my view ? BULLSPIT !! My reasons being.
1. It was illegal when they were busted. Just because it's legal now ? You were still breaking the law THEN.
2. LOOK at the amount of weed involved. If it was under 1 pound ? Yeah, I might go for that. But if you were trafficking ? HELL NO. This is why.
If you were trafficking in drugs ? It was for the MONEY. Which in effect means, When they get out, Most will start trafficking in something else. Financial gain is the motive.
My worry, Is this will be done in a typical government blanket style amnesty. This could very well bite us in the ass. When these people start committing crimes, They will now be counted as the law abiding citizen. And if not careful ? We, The L.A.B. (law abiding citizen) could get a statistical bite in the arse.
In Mo. Concealed carry requires NO training at all. I'm waiting for this to bite us in the arse. There are too many fools running around out there that DO NOT know the law for when and where they can use a firearm.
This deserves careful scrutiny.....
Kind of what I was thinking Krp. One can get there gun rights back in Va. but they have to go through a process. I think there will be a lot of stuff coming up that we haven't thought about yet. It is funny that Dems want to get rid of guns but aren't Leary of giving gun rights back. Just makes me think what the real issue is.
If and that's a big IF a person has served the time for the crime and is released from prison then supposedly they have paid their debt to society. This being said then yes they should be restored all the rights that were taken. Now the truth is NOBODY has ever paid their debt to society in reality. They were convicted and sentenced to say 10 years. They were fed, housed, free Dr care, free dental, clothes etc. They didn't pay for any of this. The tax payer--you and me , paid for this. They were simply put in a different housing environment and made to play with other people that did the same or similar things.
Most of these people that wanted to got their voting rights restored by simply filling out a piece of paper. If you follow the logic of this no constitutional right is any more important than any other right so the return of their 2nd amendment right should be the same. The problem with all of this is violent people that are habitual violent criminals are going to just wash rinse and repeat, so what do we do? The reasoning of parole, release, completion of sentence is all screwed up. Mandatory sentencing is all screwed up. If the person is released from prison for whatever reason should have their rights restored. If they are too dangerous or deemed a threat to society then they should be kept locked up. It's that simple.
There is a helluva difference between a 17 year old kid that steals a car and has never done anything before and is not likely to do anything illegal again and a 17 year old kid that is a drug dealer, killed 7 people and is going to jail for his masters in crime. We don't have the room or the need to feed and care for the second case so we have two choices, either house the bastard and feed him for 7 years---a life sentence is 7 years, and then turn them loose or fly low over the Gulf of Mexico and see how many times they will bounce on the water before they get caught by a shark. I'm in favor of the second choice.
Most of these people that wanted to got their voting rights restored by simply filling out a piece of paper. If you follow the logic of this no constitutional right is any more important than any other right so the return of their 2nd amendment right should be the same. The problem with all of this is violent people that are habitual violent criminals are going to just wash rinse and repeat, so what do we do? The reasoning of parole, release, completion of sentence is all screwed up. Mandatory sentencing is all screwed up. If the person is released from prison for whatever reason should have their rights restored. If they are too dangerous or deemed a threat to society then they should be kept locked up. It's that simple.
There is a helluva difference between a 17 year old kid that steals a car and has never done anything before and is not likely to do anything illegal again and a 17 year old kid that is a drug dealer, killed 7 people and is going to jail for his masters in crime. We don't have the room or the need to feed and care for the second case so we have two choices, either house the bastard and feed him for 7 years---a life sentence is 7 years, and then turn them loose or fly low over the Gulf of Mexico and see how many times they will bounce on the water before they get caught by a shark. I'm in favor of the second choice.
You are right. It should be based on what crime was committed. If they physically harmed anyone in any way and is a felon ....sorry , no gun rights for you. Past habits are not automatically done away with. Personal actions are usually repeated as time goes by. Crimes against children are statistically proven to be repeated by perps. As well as many other crimes. Yeah....if you do the crime you do the time but that doesn't necessarily change behavior. How to change behavior is the biggest challenge. Criminals ARE taken care of financially while in jail on our dime. So it should be "do the crime and I will take care of you on MY dime". Make the criminals pay it back when they get out of jail. When they served the time and not until they pay that money back that took care of them while they were in prison should they get ANY rights back. If they really wanted their rights back for the good of society then the felons shouldn't mind. Otherwise, the felons really didn't PAY for their crime and just want their rights back for other reasons.
Affecting someone's money would be a bigger deterrence on commiting crime than letting them sit on their arse in a jail cell not having to do anything and basically getting paid while doing it. Going to prison would just be a small part in society reform. They should be required financially for society reform.
Affecting someone's money would be a bigger deterrence on commiting crime than letting them sit on their arse in a jail cell not having to do anything and basically getting paid while doing it. Going to prison would just be a small part in society reform. They should be required financially for society reform.
Senators Katie Britt and Tommy Tubberville have signed onto a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to strike down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule on the definitions of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms. This rule ignores the law and congressional intent and flagrantly violates the Constitution to try to require anyone who sells a firearm to register as a federal firearm licensee.
“The Second Amendment is sacred – and Joe Biden doesn’t get to regulate Americans’ right to bear arms, “ said Senator Tuberville. “Once again, the Biden Administration is trying to overregulate the gun industry and take away Americans’ rights. Make no mistake – this is an election year ploy. As long as I’m in the Senate, I’ll fight to make sure Alabamians’ Second Amendment rights are protected.”
According to the ATF, on April 10, 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF’s final rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478.
“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement his office released. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”
The joint resolution follows several lawsuits against the rule, including one filed in Kansas that Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office has joined.
Representative Andrew Clyde is leading the resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives. Alabama representatives Robert Aderholt, Gary Palmer, Mike Rogers and Barry Moore, were original co-sponsors of his resolution.
According to Clyde’s office, the resolution is endorsed by national Second Amendment groups Gun Owners of America (GOA), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
“With a stroke of the pen, the Biden Administration once again oversteps its authority with this new rule. This regulation threatens to turn tens of thousands of upstanding citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights by selling even a single firearm. The NRA fully supports Senator Cornyn and Representative Clyde’s legislation to invalidate this egregious rule,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
“The ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule is President Biden’s unconstitutional attempt to impose by executive rule making a form of so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ expressly rejected by Congress. This rule threatens law-abiding Americans with criminal sanction including imprisonment for occasionally privately selling firearms, conduct Congress has said does not require a license. The constitution does not grant ATF authority to ‘improve’ on what Congress has enacted or to create from whole cloth crimes not enacted by Congress. NSSF thanks Congressman Andrew Clyde for his leadership to exert Congress’ sole authority to craft criminal law, to constrain the growth of the administrative state that threatens our democracy and to stand up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
U.S. Senators Lead Charge to Scrap NFA Tax via RIFLE Act
Introducing the bold RIFLE Act: a game-changing legislation aimed at repealing the hefty tax on firearms and accessories under the NFA.
Well....bumpstocks are legal again. However, what really was decided by the Supreme court was that the ATF couldn't make laws or change definitions. Congress has to do that. This will affect other lawsuits that the courts have to decide. I don't care about the bumpstocks but the other issues have to be decided by Congress is way more important.
Yep here is the ruling that the SCOTUS upheld. I've never seen them move this fast. The Texas judge ruled Tuesday and the SCOTUS upheld the ruling by Today. That's odd. I am wondering now what about the Glock triggers because that is not a gun either. The next big thing is the "everybody is a dealer" language they put in the regulations.
shareShare
A Texas Federal District Judge vacated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule for pistol stabilizing devices.
At the request of President Joe Biden, ATF introduced a new rule that reclassified pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices. The new classification considered pistol braces stocks. Therefore, any pistol with a brace would be viewed as a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Since any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), anyone with a brace installed on a pistol would have to register their firearm with the ATF. Failure to do so would mean that the owner could be committing a felony in the eyes of the ATF. The penalty for violating the NFA could land a person in prison for ten years and force them to pay a $250,000 fine. This fine and sentence is the same punishment for having an unregistered machine gun.
Before the rule was enacted, several gun organizations filed for injunctions preventing the ATF from enforcing the rule. All these gun rights organizations received injunctions. Eventually, a nationwide injunction would be issued. One of these cases was Mock v. Garland, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). After an original loss, FPC would appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of three judges would rule that the organization was entitled to a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court level.
Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants asked District Court Judge Reed O’Connor for summary judgment. The ATF wanted the Court to allow the rule to be enforced. FPC wanted the rule to be completely struck down. The ATF claimed that the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not bind the District Court’s decision. Judge O’Connor said that even if that was the case, he agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning.
“Defendants assert that it would be proper for the Court to make its own determination on the issue because this Court is not bound by the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, the briefing was insufficient at the appellate level, and the panel created a new legal test for determining whether a rule is legislative,” Judge O’Connor wrote. “The Court declines to relitigate a determination made by the Fifth Circuit in this case. Even assuming that this Court is not bound by the majority’s opinion, and that the majority created a new test for determining whether a rule is legislative in nature, the Court has previously adopted the majority’s conclusion as its own.”
The ATF’s lawyers tried to argue that the plaintiffs were not eligible for an injunction because of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). The AIA states, “[n]o suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”
Judge O’Connor said he did not have to consider the AIA because he would not issue an injunction. Instead, the Judge was going to vacate the law, which is not covered by the AIA. The court ruling not only enjoined the ATF from enforcing the rule; it knocked the rule down entirely.
The Judge also decided the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The ATF tried to argue that the Final Rule was a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule that the public could comment on during the open comment period. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule bore no resemblance to the proposed rule. The Judge agreed with the Plaintiffs.
“Consequently, the Court finds that the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule,” the order read. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to this issue.”
Judge O’Connor also agreed that the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious. He said the Bureau did not provide a detailed justification for changing years of policy. Most believed that the ATF changed its long-standing position on pistol stabilizing devices to placate President Joe Biden. President Biden demanded that the ATF change the rule to restrict pistols equipped with stabilizing devices. The Judge also said the ATF did not take into consideration the public’s comments when creating the Final Rule.
The Judge also was concerned that the ATF could not explain how the Bureau classifies pistols with braces as SBRs. This problem means that no one could know if they possessed a pistol with a stabilizing device or an unregistered SBR until the ATF charged them with a felony. He pointed out that no one could identify a pistol with a brace that the ATF wouldn’t consider an SBR. The Judge said the rule was “impermissibly vague.”
“Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles,” the order reads. “The ATF contemporaneously issued approximately sixty adjudications pursuant to the Final Rule that reclassified different configurations of firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA rifles The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no ‘meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.’ In fact, the Fifth Circuit “[could not] find a single given example of a pistol with a stabilizing brace that would constitute an NFA exempt braced pistol.”
Judge O’Connor didn’t consider the Constitutionality of the rule because there was enough to vacate the rule under the APA. The Judge could send the rule back to the ATF to be modified, but he chose not to take this action because the rule is beyond repair. He could also apply the ruling just to the Plaintiffs, but he decided to apply the vacatur nationwide.
The ATF is expected to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but they have already lost on that level, and there is no reason to think that the Fifth Circuit will have a change of heart. Either way, the case will probably be heading to SCOTUS, but there is no guarantee that the High Court will grant cert. We will have a better idea of the future of this rule and others when SCOTUS releases its opinion this month in Cargill v. Garland. That case deals with another ATF rule banning bump stocks.
Federal Judge Vacates the ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule
14 Jun from BamaCarry Inc.shareShare
A Texas Federal District Judge vacated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule for pistol stabilizing devices.
At the request of President Joe Biden, ATF introduced a new rule that reclassified pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices. The new classification considered pistol braces stocks. Therefore, any pistol with a brace would be viewed as a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Since any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), anyone with a brace installed on a pistol would have to register their firearm with the ATF. Failure to do so would mean that the owner could be committing a felony in the eyes of the ATF. The penalty for violating the NFA could land a person in prison for ten years and force them to pay a $250,000 fine. This fine and sentence is the same punishment for having an unregistered machine gun.
Before the rule was enacted, several gun organizations filed for injunctions preventing the ATF from enforcing the rule. All these gun rights organizations received injunctions. Eventually, a nationwide injunction would be issued. One of these cases was Mock v. Garland, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). After an original loss, FPC would appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of three judges would rule that the organization was entitled to a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court level.
Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants asked District Court Judge Reed O’Connor for summary judgment. The ATF wanted the Court to allow the rule to be enforced. FPC wanted the rule to be completely struck down. The ATF claimed that the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not bind the District Court’s decision. Judge O’Connor said that even if that was the case, he agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning.
“Defendants assert that it would be proper for the Court to make its own determination on the issue because this Court is not bound by the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, the briefing was insufficient at the appellate level, and the panel created a new legal test for determining whether a rule is legislative,” Judge O’Connor wrote. “The Court declines to relitigate a determination made by the Fifth Circuit in this case. Even assuming that this Court is not bound by the majority’s opinion, and that the majority created a new test for determining whether a rule is legislative in nature, the Court has previously adopted the majority’s conclusion as its own.”
The ATF’s lawyers tried to argue that the plaintiffs were not eligible for an injunction because of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (AIA). The AIA states, “[n]o suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed.”
Judge O’Connor said he did not have to consider the AIA because he would not issue an injunction. Instead, the Judge was going to vacate the law, which is not covered by the AIA. The court ruling not only enjoined the ATF from enforcing the rule; it knocked the rule down entirely.
The Judge also decided the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The ATF tried to argue that the Final Rule was a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule that the public could comment on during the open comment period. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule bore no resemblance to the proposed rule. The Judge agreed with the Plaintiffs.
“Consequently, the Court finds that the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule,” the order read. “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to this issue.”
Judge O’Connor also agreed that the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious. He said the Bureau did not provide a detailed justification for changing years of policy. Most believed that the ATF changed its long-standing position on pistol stabilizing devices to placate President Joe Biden. President Biden demanded that the ATF change the rule to restrict pistols equipped with stabilizing devices. The Judge also said the ATF did not take into consideration the public’s comments when creating the Final Rule.
The Judge also was concerned that the ATF could not explain how the Bureau classifies pistols with braces as SBRs. This problem means that no one could know if they possessed a pistol with a stabilizing device or an unregistered SBR until the ATF charged them with a felony. He pointed out that no one could identify a pistol with a brace that the ATF wouldn’t consider an SBR. The Judge said the rule was “impermissibly vague.”
“Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles,” the order reads. “The ATF contemporaneously issued approximately sixty adjudications pursuant to the Final Rule that reclassified different configurations of firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA rifles The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no ‘meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.’ In fact, the Fifth Circuit “[could not] find a single given example of a pistol with a stabilizing brace that would constitute an NFA exempt braced pistol.”
Judge O’Connor didn’t consider the Constitutionality of the rule because there was enough to vacate the rule under the APA. The Judge could send the rule back to the ATF to be modified, but he chose not to take this action because the rule is beyond repair. He could also apply the ruling just to the Plaintiffs, but he decided to apply the vacatur nationwide.
The ATF is expected to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but they have already lost on that level, and there is no reason to think that the Fifth Circuit will have a change of heart. Either way, the case will probably be heading to SCOTUS, but there is no guarantee that the High Court will grant cert. We will have a better idea of the future of this rule and others when SCOTUS releases its opinion this month in Cargill v. Garland. That case deals with another ATF rule banning bump stocks.
Just as an afterthought here. I am wondering as to how this will affect suppressors. If you think about it, it is really the same thing. A suppressor is not a gun. It is just an add on like a bump stock or a trigger. None of these items are a firearm by themselves. Just a thought.
I am just glad that the ATF cant do changes on their own now. We didn't vote any of them in. However, since its up to Congress....that might be a mess all its own. Depends who is in control.
Suppressors are being discussed now in certain circles. Maybe one day they will be like buying a scope for a rifle.
Suppressors are being discussed now in certain circles. Maybe one day they will be like buying a scope for a rifle.
They can still do it. This "everybody is a dealer" has been challenged and has an injunction against it's enforcement inTexas. I don't know if the injunction covers the rest of the country. The bump stock ownership was the same way when it started. GOA got an injunction against enforcement in Texas and then got one from a district judge that covered the whole country and then the SCOTUS ruled this morning against the code being included. They called it "vacated," so somebody took a pencil and drew a line through it. I hope they do the same for "everybody is a dealer" the suppressor tax & registration and all the other dumbass stuff. All of it is regulation that the ATF made up for some politician, republican and democrat.
