Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

[Bonesinium]

This was not a 2nd Amendment case, but a regulatory case.

Regulating what?

 

[sbhaven]

Regulating what?

When SCOTUS accepted the case it was to address two questions:

1. Whether "a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive," 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a "firearm" regulated by the Act.

2. Whether "a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver" that is "designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver," 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a "frame or receiver" regulated by the Act.

The court ruled narrowly on the grounds the two questions presented.

 

[xtry51]

The court allowed a regulation of something they also claim was a right. Which is more than enough to know they aren't capable of logic or reason.

 

[PappyM3]

View: https://x.com/NaviGoBoom/status/1904930063973253329

Navi of Boomhandia

My summary on the Vanderstok Ruling:

Bad Things:
- All-in-one kits need serial numbers, background checks

- Polymer 80 frames (and things as easy to complete as them) need serial numbers, background checks

- ATF retains their new, rule-endorsed ability to come up with arbitrary decisions about what is and isn't a firearm (this wasn't really challenged by plaintiffs)

Good Things:
- This has no bearing on your ability to make guns yourself. You don't have to put serial numbers on your stuff. "Ghost guns" are not banned.

- AR15 80s are unaffected (at least for now)

- Flats, blanks, tubes, forgings, etc are all unaffected

- Court does not endorse the "8 hours in a machine shop" test, instead pointing to "1 hour, unskilled, with power tools" as being an example that's clearly "readily converted".

Does anybody know about the part of the rule that mandated all personally made firearms without serial numbers that got signed into an FFLs books had to be engraved with a serial number by the FFL?

 

[dans]

It hasn't, and no.

I guess you missed all of the discussion of vanderstok (and others). I have a hard time believing, as do others, that that case is related to Bruen.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

I guess you missed all of the discussion of vanderstok (and others). I have a hard time believing, as do others, that that case is related to Bruen.

It's only tangentially related. In theory, the Supreme Court could have decided that the Gun Control Act violated the tests set down in Bruen and ruled it unconstitutional. Instead, they applied the wording of the GCA to reach their decision.

 

[dans]

It's only tangentially related. In theory, the Supreme Court could have decided that the Gun Control Act violated the tests set down in Bruen and ruled it unconstitutional. Instead, they applied the wording of the GCA to reach their decision.

So we can discuss it (and all other) “tangentially” related SCOTUS rulings in any/all of the threads on SCOTUS cases

 

[42!]

The court allowed a regulation of something they also claim was a right. Which is more than enough to know they aren't capable of logic or reason.

SCOTUS can only address the question put forth in the complaint, If the claim is that the regulation is wrong, then that's what they are limited to. It's up to the complainant to make it a 2a issue.

 

[Bonesinium]

When SCOTUS accepted the case it was to address two questions:

The court ruled narrowly on the grounds the two questions presented.

So that’d be regulation of…firearms?

 

[vicorjh]

1 hour time to assemble = readily convertible. That's going to generate a bunch of bull.

 

[sbhaven]

So that’d be regulation of…firearms?

They were asked to rule if specific things were either a firearm or frame or receiver regulated by the Act. They were not being asked to rule about the constitutionality of the Act or if those specific regulations were constitutional. So the court ruled narrowly on the regulation, not specifically the constitutionality of that regulation.

 

[MickeyD’s]

The court allowed a regulation of something they also claim was a right. Which is more than enough to know they aren't capable of logic or reason.

Bingo

Bruen was the final nail in the coffin

 

[wcorey]

Vanderstok comes as no surprise to me, seems it was an eventual inevitability.
My concern has always been that it would take down the whole house of homemade stuff along with it, at least that hasn't happened yet, on the federal level anyway. I think it's already been mentioned that it some ways actually reaffirms the right to build and may actually open up some opportunity for state level challenges.

I've always been amazed the AFT let the P80 stuff slide to begin with considering it's like an order of magnitude easier than doing an 80% AR, one could be completed one in short order with nothing but a swiss army knife.
They were always super pissy about all sorts of details on the AR receivers, like not having covered up hollow areas in the FCG pocket on the plastic ones or early on not having the rear takedown pin pocket machined out.
In contrast the P80's are one step away from making it work like electric box knockouts or just putting a cork in it and including a corkscrew, lol.

Seems like there's little rhyme or reason to any of it, you then look at what it takes to do an 80% FAL and it makes the AR's look easy, IIRC it's like 20 hours of setup/machining. Try doing one of those on the kitchen counter with only a router and drill.

I guess it's just all been a matter of complying with very poorly thought out arbitrary rules and regulations whose interpretations change like the wind, as usual...

 

[Coyote33]

I guess you missed all of the discussion of vanderstok (and others).

I guess I did. Was it in this thread somewhere?

I have a hard time believing, as do others, that that case is related to Bruen.

If it was discussed in here, then that "sign" picture was appropriate, right? Keep it on track!

 

[MGnoob]

Good outcome for that guy (and for us - he's a crappy case-law-making plaintiff) but it's a settlement, not an award.

Don’t judge the guy too harshly. I’d be a shitty f***ing plaintive too 10 grand all they gave him? Don’t ever go to New Jersey. The cops are robbed me for $9500 in cash one time. When I asked for a receipt or a ticket, I got the shit kicked out of me.

 

[MGnoob]

The beauty of it was is there was no court case

 

[1sern]

Portable Rican Edgardo Ramos a US district court judge of the Southern District of NY is another wise Latrina. He knows better and says F Caetano, stun guns aren't protected by the 2nd.

NYC Court Holds Stun Guns are NOT Protected by Second Amendment

New York District Court Judge Eduardo Ramos has issued the first ruling to contradict the Supreme Court Caetano decision, and has found stun guns and tasers are not covered by the text of the Second Amendment.

www.ammoland.com