Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

My concern, Rahimi keeps pushing his loser case and we end up with something that will harm the 2a for everybody. He's in this only for himself, not the general 2a, and so far all the big boys are steering clear of it. You'd think at least one would be partnered with him if there was a possibility of something good coming out of it.
 
42! said:
My concern, Rahimi keeps pushing his loser case and we end up with something that will harm the 2a for everybody. He's in this only for himself, not the general 2a, and so far all the big boys are steering clear of it. You'd think at least one would be partnered with him if there was a possibility of something good coming out of it.
Click to expand...
You could almost say that about Caetano.

Of course he's in it for himself. That's what defendants do. And, considering the ideals expressed in our Constitution, it's what they should do.
 
Mesatchornug said:
You could almost say that about Caetano.

Of course he's in it for himself. That's what defendants do. And, considering the ideals expressed in our Constitution, it's what they should do.
Click to expand...
Unemployed stripper caught while involved in shoplifting and defended by public defender.

Yeah - that one could have gone really bad if the state hadn't argued that she should have shot her baby daddy instead of threatening with a stun gun.
 
pastera said:
Unemployed stripper caught while involved in shoplifting and defended by public defender.

Yeah - that one could have gone really bad if the state hadn't argued that she should have shot her baby daddy instead of threatening with a stun gun.
Click to expand...
Alleged shoplifting. IIRC, she agreed to the search because she knew she wasn't their suspect. I couldn't recall the unemployed, but I did recall the homeless characteristic.

Regardless, 100% agreed. And none of the bigs cared about her either. If we won't protect the rights of the lowest among us, do we really believe in rights?
 
42! said:
My concern, Rahimi keeps pushing his loser case and we end up with something that will harm the 2a for everybody. He's in this only for himself, not the general 2a, and so far all the big boys are steering clear of it. You'd think at least one would be partnered with him if there was a possibility of something good coming out of it.
Click to expand...

Positive court rulings stemming from incidents involving actual criminals are more common than positive court rulings stemming from innocent people being abused by government.

I don't know why people on this forum think there is some magic unicorn of a case with an angel defendant that will produce amazing case law and anything less must be bad for everyone. It's absurd and it's constantly espoused on this forum for some reason.
 
Bonesinium said:
Positive court rulings stemming from incidents involving actual criminals are more common than positive court rulings stemming from innocent people being abused by government.

I don't know why people on this forum think there is some magic unicorn of a case with an angel defendant that will produce amazing case law and anything less must be bad for everyone. It's absurd and it's constantly espoused on this forum for some reason.
Click to expand...

This.

Remember, Miranda was most likely guilty, and was convicted at his retrial. Not a great human being. But he had rights, and they were violated, and insisting on those rights has made all of us more free.
 
In the aftermath of Miranda people used to complain about criminals getting "off on technicalities." I was young at the time, but as I got older I started to tell people that those "technicalities" are the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Once the government, as in the case of the Jan. 6 defendants and President Trump decide that the Constitution doesn't apply to them we are all in the shit.

Picton said:
This.

Remember, Miranda was most likely guilty, and was convicted at his retrial. Not a great human being. But he had rights, and they were violated, and insisting on those rights has made all of us more free.
Click to expand...
 
42! said:
My concern, Rahimi keeps pushing his loser case and we end up with something that will harm the 2a for everybody. He's in this only for himself, not the general 2a, and so far all the big boys are steering clear of it. You'd think at least one would be partnered with him if there was a possibility of something good coming out of it.
Click to expand...

Rahimi doesn’t have to push, there is no one shoving that case through harder than Attorney General Merrick Garland.

🐯
 
Joeldiaz said:
FPC, GOA & SAF have long since given up on MA. FPC is currently challenging the handgun roster. A few months back when CA1 remanded the roster case back down to the district court in light of Bruen, they themselves admitted on Twitter that litigating in MA is a waste of time. Doesn’t matter the defendant, all 2A challenges are guaranteed to fail here because the entire 1st Circuit is vehemently anti-gun. You can bet your bottom dollar that they regret suing in the first place when they’ve got a slightly more successful roster case in CA. National groups won’t help us, we have to get local and support Comm2A.
Click to expand...
White vs Cox FPCLaw.org
 
Joeldiaz said:
One other possible option not discussed in this update video: SCOTUS could hold off on hearing all 3 bump stock cases until they decide LBE v. Raimondo and overturn Chevron. Then they could remand all of the bump stock cases back down to the lower courts in light of their Raimondo decision.
Click to expand...
Why? It's clear cut what the language of the NFA act is regarding what constitutes as a machine gun in more than one round fired per pull of the trigger. The ATF and DOJ can only enforce the NFA if the firearms perform that function. Rates of fire increase and mimicking the rate of fire of a machine gun is not language found in the law or any law pertaining to machine guns.
 
T-Unit said:
Why? It's clear cut what the language of the NFA act is regarding what constitutes as a machine gun in more than one round fired per pull of the trigger. The ATF and DOJ can only enforce the NFA if the firearms perform that function. Rates of fire increase and mimicking the rate of fire of a machine gun is not language found in the law or any law pertaining to machine guns.
Click to expand...
It’s not so much about the content of the case itself. The bump stock issue is more than just about bump stocks. The logic used by the ATF to ban them in the first place extends to all of the other BS that they’re trying to pull by redefining statutes to say things they don’t actually say. It’s also not just specific to the ATF, all of the executive branch agencies are pulling this BS (just look at the WV v. EPA case). It still remains to be seen how SCOTUS plans to address administrative law/APA cases.

The 5th Circuit had deemed the bump stock ban unconstitutional primarily by focusing on the technical definition of bump stocks, whereas the 6th Circuit is currently emphasizing the rule of lenity in its assessment (Hardin v. ATF). We won’t know what reasoning SCOTUS will ultimately agree with until the time comes. I personally believe they’ll opt to nuke Chevron and then let the bump stock cases get reworked using their new methodology, similar to how they remanded all of their 2A cases after Bruen.
 
Joeldiaz said:
It’s not so much about the content of the case itself. The bump stock issue is more than just about bump stocks. The logic used by the ATF to ban them in the first place extends to all of the other BS that they’re trying to pull by redefining statutes to say things they don’t actually say. It’s also not just specific to the ATF, all of the executive branch agencies are pulling this BS (just look at the WV v. EPA case).
Click to expand...

I don't mean to contradict your general point, but I don't think VW v. EPA is a good example. VW clearly tried to evade the existing rules that everyone knew about and was complying with. VW f***ed up by trying to be "clever". This isn't really a case of administrative rule re-interpretation.

And I say that as a VW diesel fan-boi.
 
milktree said:
I don't mean to contradict your general point, but I don't think VW v. EPA is a good example. VW clearly tried to evade the existing rules that everyone knew about and was complying with. VW f***ed up by trying to be "clever". This isn't really a case of administrative rule re-interpretation.

And I say that as a VW diesel fan-boi.
Click to expand...
I said WV, as in West Virginia. Not VW, as in Volkswagen. Maybe I should’ve used Sackett v. EPA as a better example to cause less confusion.
 
The bump stock rule was a political maneuver by Trump to address the “we must do something” outcry after Vegas while not requiring GOP congresscritters to go on record either for or against a ban.

Watching courts try to dance around the clear language of the statutes has been instructive, but if the rule gets overturned, it will still place pro-2A candidates in an awkward position.
 
T-Unit said:
Why? It's clear cut what the language of the NFA act is regarding what constitutes as a machine gun in more than one round fired per pull of the trigger. The ATF and DOJ can only enforce the NFA if the firearms perform that function. Rates of fire increase and mimicking the rate of fire of a machine gun is not language found in the law or any law pertaining to machine guns.
Click to expand...
We know the difference, but many judges don't. If you pull the trigger and it keeps firing, they think that's a machine gun... even if it only fires so long as you apply forward pressure on the handguard. It's not the trigger finger that pulls the trigger on a bump stock gun.

Until we destroy Chevron deference, judges will keep letting executive agencies make laws beyond black letter legislation.
 
KBCraig said:
We know the difference, but many judges don't. If you pull the trigger and it keeps firing, they think that's a machine gun... even if it only fires so long as you apply forward pressure on the handguard. It's not the trigger finger that pulls the trigger on a bump stock gun.

Until we destroy Chevron deference, judges will keep letting executive agencies make laws beyond black letter legislation.
Click to expand...
I'm all for removing Chevron deference because after Covid it's obvious that the executive agencies will make decisions based on what personally benefits them and they'll use Chevron as a defense, but when it's so clear what legally constitutes a machine gun because it's written into the law stating exactly what operation it must perform to be called a machine gun, you shouldn't need to remove Chevron to strike it down.

SCOTUS just doesn't want to be the ones who make the ruling, they want a buffer so they don't get the blame, especially when it comes to 2A cases.
 
T-Unit said:
I'm all for removing Chevron deference because after Covid it's obvious that the executive agencies will make decisions based on what personally benefits them and they'll use Chevron as a defense, but when it's so clear what legally constitutes a machine gun because it's written into the law stating exactly what operation it must perform to be called a machine gun, you shouldn't need to remove Chevron to strike it down.
Click to expand...
It’s so clear yet we’ve had previous circuits before the 5th upholding the bump stock ban. You know why? Chevron. It absolutely needs to go first before SCOTUS rules on bump stocks, no matter how clear the statute might be. Otherwise, nothing stops the ATF from pulling the same thing again with literally anything else (pistol braces, FRTs, frames & receivers, etc).
T-Unit said:
SCOTUS just doesn't want to be the ones who make the ruling, they want a buffer so they don't get the blame, especially when it comes to 2A cases.
Click to expand...

You’re right. In general SCOTUS doesn’t like having to step in, they prefer to let the inferior courts do what they’re supposed to and only step in when absolutely necessary. Technically speaking though, these bump stock cases are not 2A cases. The whole point of these cases is that if bump stocks have to be banned then Congress needs to do it, not the ATF.

Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner actually made a video predicting this exact thing happening back when SCOTUS denied cert to their previous bump stock cases (GOA v. Garland & Aposhian v. Garland). He predicted that SCOTUS would rather not get rid of Chevron through a case involving a hot ticket item like guns, and that they’d rather do it through something that isn’t so controversial. IMO, LBE v. Raimondo is the case they’ll use to toss Chevron. After that, we’ll see what they do with bump stocks.
 
Joeldiaz said:
It’s so clear yet we’ve had previous circuits before the 5th upholding the bump stock ban. You know why? Chevron. It absolutely needs to go first before SCOTUS rules on bump stocks, no matter how clear the statute might be. Otherwise, nothing stops the ATF from pulling the same thing again with literally anything else (pistol braces, FRTs, frames & receivers, etc).


You’re right. In general SCOTUS doesn’t like having to step in, they prefer to let the inferior courts do what they’re supposed to and only step in when absolutely necessary. Technically speaking though, these bump stock cases are not 2A cases. The whole point of these cases is that if bump stocks have to be banned then Congress needs to do it, not the ATF.

Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner actually made a video predicting this exact thing happening back when SCOTUS denied cert to their previous bump stock cases (GOA v. Garland & Aposhian v. Garland). He predicted that SCOTUS would rather not get rid of Chevron through a case involving a hot ticket item like guns, and that they’d rather do it through something that isn’t so controversial. IMO, LBE v. Raimondo is the case they’ll use to toss Chevron. After that, we’ll see what they do with bump stocks.
Click to expand...
Four boxes diner is GOATed as a 2a YT channel
 
aphextwin11 said:
Four boxes diner is GOATed as a 2a YT channel
Click to expand...
Absolutely. He delivers top notch information and is an excellent resource. I will say though, some of his videos can be a little hard to sit through. He often gets a little too wordy and repeats himself a lot for emphasis. Some of his videos could easily be shortened down to like 2/3 of the original length.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
113
lutstribe
L
Supreme Court decision on rifle bans
Replies
9
Views
738
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Supreme Court ending permits
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester State Court Gun Policy
Replies
12
Views
453
Mark from ?
M
Is it time yet for a "Why is there even a dealer classifieds" Megathread?
Replies
12
Views
266
Individualist
Individualist
Back
Top Bottom