Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Badger52]

BLUF: US District Court had, multiple times, extended the stay against the ATF's rule on pistol braces. Each one had a sunset in the form of a drop-dead date for the ATF to respond. They haven't so now he's extended it pending full resolution, or a higher overarching ruling.

Link for reference.

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Judge Tipton means the ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule against members of Gun Owners of America.

GOA are a party/plaintiff in the original lawsuit.

[Box]

The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Judge Tipton means the ATF cannot enforce the pistol brace rule against members of Gun Owners of America.

Great News !!!

But for the rest of American citizens that aren't members of the GOA or those that didn't join GOA until after GOA filed the law suit...
...you are cordially invited to continue eating your peas until your second amendment privileges have been re-granted since the judge thinks "the pistol-brace ban is likely unconstitutional"

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Box

Great News !!!

But for the rest of American citizens that aren't members of the GOA or those that didn't join GOA until after GOA filed the law suit...
...you are cordially invited to continue eating your peas until your second amendment privileges have been re-granted since the judge thinks "the pistol-brace ban is likely unconstitutional"

No dispute, just baby steps. I hope the Dems keep investigating SCOTUS for those fishing trips and sleep-overs; that should soften their hearts.

[Badger52]

They granted cert to hear the Garland v. Cargill bumpstock petition.

There's also an amicus brief from the NRA added to their current petition to be heard by SCOTUS, over NY Dept of Fin Services coercing people not to do business with the NRA, as a 1st Amendment issue. (Think entities continuing on with the great idea of Opn CHOKE POINT.) They're granting only as to the first petition question. Here's the intro to the petition:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Bantam Books v. Sullivan held that a state com-
mission with no formal regulatory power violated the
First Amendment when it “deliberately set out to
achieve the suppression of publications” through “in-
formal sanctions,” including the “threat of invoking le-
gal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion,
and intimidation.” 372 U.S. 58, 66-67 (1963). Respond-
ent here, wielding enormous regulatory power as the
head of New York’s Department of Financial Services
(“DFS”), applied similar pressure tactics—including
backchannel threats, ominous guidance letters, and se-
lective enforcement of regulatory infractions—to in-
duce banks and insurance companies to avoid doing
business with Petitioner, a gun rights advocacy group.
App. 199-200 ¶ 21. Respondent targeted Petitioner
explicitly based on its Second Amendment advocacy,
which DFS’s official regulatory guidance deemed a
“reputational risk” to any financial institution serving
the NRA. Id. at 199, n.16. The Second Circuit held such
conduct permissible as a matter of law, reasoning that
“this age of enhanced corporate social responsibility”
justifies regulatory concern about “general backlash”
against a customer’s political speech. Id. at 29-30. Ac-
cordingly, the questions presented are:

1. Does the First Amendment allow a govern-
ment regulator to threaten regulated entities with
adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a
controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the
government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint
or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the
speaker’s advocacy?

2. Does such coercion violate a clearly estab-
lished First Amendment right?

Now go eat your peas.

[Badger52]

LINK here, including text of the decision.The stay appears to not just apply to GOA members & other original plaintiffs. Judge Kacsmaryk strings words together pretty good.

[bblhead672]

Originally Posted by Badger52

LINK here, including text of the decision.The stay appears to not just apply to GOA members & other original plaintiffs. Judge Kacsmaryk strings words together pretty good.

Judge should rule that the ATF is un-Constitutional and order it dissolved.

Yes, I live on Fantasy Island. Look the plane!

[GratefulCitizen]

ATF can’t redefine terms to effectively legislate as an executive branch agency.
Here’s the smack down from the 5th Circuit:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-10718-CV0.pdf

[Badger52]

On Friday, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh issued a decision striking down the federal prohibition against 18 to 20-year-olds purchasing handguns.

The plaintiffs in the case are Steven Robert Brown, Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Judge Kleeh, a Donald Trump appointee, is Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Kleeh noted that the plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the statute while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Attorney General Merrick Garland, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach sought to have the case dismissed.

He sided with the plaintiffs and quoted extensively from Bruen (2022) to show the manner at which he arrived at his decision.

Here is one of Kleeh’s quotes from the Bruen decision:

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest…To demonstrate the regulation of that conduct is within the bounds of the Second Amendment, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

LINK at Breitbart here.

[Badger52]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has handed down a major ruling in Worth v. Jacobson in favor of the Second Amendment. The opinion by Judge Duane Benton upholds a lower court in striking down a Minnesota law limiting gun permits for persons 21 years old. It is a question that could find its way to the Supreme Court once splits among the circuits develop.

As noted by scholars such as Stephen Halbrook, it is also the first appellate court to rely on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rahimi, which gun rights advocates argued might be a break in the dam of Second Amendment protections. That dubious claim is even less compelling after reading this opinion.

Minnesota has joined states like New York and Illinois in advancing weak arguments to the benefit of gun rights advocates. It argued that, since the Founding, states have restricted guns in the hands of “irresponsible or dangerous groups, such as 18 to 20-year-olds.” That proposition was left virtually unsupported as was the suggestion that 18 to 20-year-olds are a public danger.

Moreover, the court ruled that it would not matter:

“Minnesota states that from the founding, states have had the power to regulate guns in the hands of irresponsible or dangerous groups, such as 18 to 20year-olds. At the step one ‘plain text’ analysis, a claim that a group is ‘irresponsible’ or ‘dangerous’ does not remove them from the definition of the people.”

Assessment of this ruling in favor of 18-20yo gun ownership in MN can be found in the full article here.
The case is Worth v. Jacobson

[JimP]

Texas allows concealed carry for 18 and up. My daughter is 19 and has her permit. Unfortunately, she could not take her heater cross-country for lack of reciprocity. At least in Texas she has some protection.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by JimP

Texas allows concealed carry for 18 and up. My daughter is 19 and has her permit. Unfortunately, she could not take her heater cross-country for lack of reciprocity. At least in Texas she has some protection.

This kind of stuff is infurating. Funny-not-funny part about here is that it's 21 to apply for a CC permission card, but we've always had open-carry which can be done at 18 since there isn't a specific age for possessing (vs. purchasing). Glad your daughter takes ownership of her personal protection.

[GratefulCitizen]

Federal judge vacates ATF classification of FRTs as machine guns.

More importantly, the judge clarifies separation of powers.
The conclusion section of the ruling is powerful.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aai...9-914a6a917b0b

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Federal judge vacates ATF classification of FRTs as machine guns.

More importantly, the judge clarifies separation of powers.
The conclusion section of the ruling is powerful.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aai...9-914a6a917b0b

Came here to post exactly this. GC's recommendation to read the decision is hereby seconded. ATF is big mad over this one. Skim the early page 1 cites but read the decision. Well-written by someone (judge or clerk) who knows something about firearms.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Federal judge vacates ATF classification of FRTs as machine guns.

More importantly, the judge clarifies separation of powers.
The conclusion section of the ruling is powerful.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aai...9-914a6a917b0b

Now we need a pile of lawsuits against the DOJ for unconstitutional takings.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by MR2

Now we need a pile of lawsuits against the DOJ for unconstitutional takings.

That would be a wonderful class-action suit, with a likelihood of prevailing.