Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Paslode

AG Schmitt has performed his job well for the state of Missouri, he has now set his sights on Roy Blunts US Senate seat. AG Schmitt is one in a field of twelve candidates the includes Eric Greitens and Marc McCloskey that is vying for Blunt's Senate seat.

https://themissouritimes.com/missour...y-blunts-seat/

I hope that he can stay where he is. This often happens unfortunately, and it seems he can actually serve the people of MO better as their AG than as just another DC writer of "strongly worded letters."

That letter was epic and should get "Distribution A" as we used to say.

[GratefulCitizen]

Miller v. Bonta was decided over a year ago and the California assault weapons ban was struck down.
California appealed and managed to get a stay on the lower court’s ruling.

After the recent SCOTUS ruling, there was a motion to lift the stay.
California wants the stay to be kept in place, the ruling vacated, and have the case remanded back to the district court.

This is just an attempt to stall.
The district court ruled using the correct test.

Here is the response to California’s motion:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir..._Lift_Stay.pdf

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Here is the response to California’s motion:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir..._Lift_Stay.pdf

Nice, thanks.

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

I'm very interested in how the courts, states, & congress will accept SCOTUS's ruling on "bureaucratic over-reach" as it pertains to ATF's Monstrosity??

Congress has shirked its duties for too long. Letting, No Encouraging sub-level bureaucrat minions rule the nation with little fear of the results.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1530_n758.pdf

Like you post JJ. I think Bruen and WV vs EPA decision 20-1530 has not reached full potential in Legal review. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1530_n758.pdf
ATF’s new rulemaking 2021r-05f must be sued for totally invalid.
This... Page 3 of text.....

"EPA explained that the Clean Power Plan, rather than setting the standard “based on the application of equipment and practices at the level of an individual facility,” had instead based it on “a shift in the energy generation mix at the grid
level,” id., at 32523. The Agency determined that the interpretive
question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions
doctrine. Under that doctrine, it determined, a clear statement is necessary for a court to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority “of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy.” Id., at 32529. ""It found none"". The Agency replaced the Clean Power Plan by promulgating a different Section 111(d) regulation, known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. Id., at 32532. In
that rule, EPA determined that the BSER would be akin to building
block one of the Clean Power Plan: a combination of equipment upgrades and operating practices that would improve facilities’ heat rates. Id., at 32522, 32537."

Sure it invalidates the EPA. This same standard of review "Major Questions doctrine" can be said and surely will for the ATF.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ceiver/summary

Surely this all falls under Supreme courts definition of "Text, History, Tradition"!

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by pcfixer

Sure it invalidates the EPA. This same standard of review "Major Questions doctrine" can be said and surely will for the ATF.

It's why I smiled bigly when that EPA decision came down.

[GratefulCitizen]

Dominoes are starting to fall from the Bruen decision.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...16528.18.0.pdf

From the TRO:

“The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning.
However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Dominoes are starting to fall from the Bruen decision.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...16528.18.0.pdf

From the TRO:

“The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning.
However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

Excellent. I especially enjoy the Judge's granting of the TRO based on their high likelihood of success at trial. It's a criteria normally seen and, in a lot of polite words, he shredded the city's position as "have some cheese with your whine."

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Excellent. I especially enjoy the Judge's granting of the TRO based on their high likelihood of success at trial. It's a criteria normally seen and, in a lot of polite words, he shreded the city's position as "have some cheese with your whine."

:thumbsup and I ROFLOL

[GratefulCitizen]

GOA and 17 states take on ATF.

https://www.scag.gov/media/r3dhdlmk/...27-to-file.pdf


It’s important to note that the 17 states didn’t merely file amicus briefs.
The 17 states are actually plaintiffs.

[GratefulCitizen]

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners challenges Colorado magazine ban in federal court.

https://rmgo.org/wp-content/uploads/...bComplaint.pdf

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

GOA and 17 states take on ATF.

https://www.scag.gov/media/r3dhdlmk/...27-to-file.pdf


It’s important to note that the 17 states didn’t merely file amicus briefs.
The 17 states are actually plaintiffs.

The barristers need to continue bringing their A-game. The jungle of jargon is formidable, and it's not a pretty jungle like on a TV vacation prize. Judges need mentoring.

[pcfixer]

I'll will be interesting to know the Judges name on this!


Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
Dominoes are starting to fall from the Bruen decision.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...16528.18.0.pdf

[bubba]

This is Pure AWESOME!

To see this in a law suit makes me happy….

“332. In other words, ATF has created an informal definition, within another informal definition, within a regulatory definition, within another regulatory definition, within a statutory definition, of a statutory term.

333. If that does not sum up the problems with this nation’s vast and unchecked administrative state, it is hard to see what would.”

God Bless the States that filed this!

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Miller v. Bonta was decided over a year ago and the California assault weapons ban was struck down.
California appealed and managed to get a stay on the lower court’s ruling.

After the recent SCOTUS ruling, there was a motion to lift the stay.
California wants the stay to be kept in place, the ruling vacated, and have the case remanded back to the district court.

This is just an attempt to stall.
The district court ruled using the correct test.

Here is the response to California’s motion:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir..._Lift_Stay.pdf

The 9th circuit is enabling California’s stalling tactics.
Hopefully plaintiffs will seek an injunction

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1659399440

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

The 9th circuit is enabling California’s stalling tactics.
Hopefully plaintiffs will seek an injunction

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1659399440

Thanks for continuing to track this.