ATF Stripped of power, SCOTUS 9-0 Emergency Order

[John Kloehr]

I'm calling BS (see post 6 for details). Original post follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this article, not enough details.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/atf-stripped-of-power-under-new-9-0-emergency-order-by-supreme-court/ss-BB1oawmR#:~:text=In a significant ruling%2C the,owners and federal agencies alike.

 

Not finding the actual ruling, not finding corroborating news posts.

 

Am hearing things through the grape vine.

 

Is this pistol braces? Frame or receiver? ATF raids on citizens?

 

Want to know if this is real, and also whatever "this" is.

[John Kloehr]

Just dug a bit deeper, the MSN article referred to a video by Best Iron. I took a look at his YouTube channel...

 

https://www.youtube.com/@Bestirons/videos

 

I do not consider this channel credible. Don't know if the MSN citation of his page is just MSN's own firearms incompetence or if MSN got had.

[Rip Snorter]

There is this, in principle it should impact all of their recent "regulations" . https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/13/u-s-district-judge-vacates-atfs-ar-pistol-brace-rule/

[John Kloehr]

1 minute ago, Rip Snorter said:

There is this, in principle it should impact all of their recent "regulations" . https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/13/u-s-district-judge-vacates-atfs-ar-pistol-brace-rule/

Crossed in the wind. I did find that and just started a thread on it. The 5th circuit ruling is on procedure (APA), not on 2A grounds.

 

Trying to figure out if SCOTUS did something.

[Rip Snorter]

3 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Crossed in the wind. I did find that and just started a thread on it. The 5th circuit ruling is on procedure (APA), not on 2A grounds.

 

Trying to figure out if SCOTUS did something.

Nothing I could find quickly.  In for the info, if I find something credible, I'll add it.

[John Kloehr]

In various Internet browsings, circled back around to this story. No corroboration to be found. Nothing on SCOTUS Blog. 

 

I am calling BS.

 

The slideshow in the story is screen captures from the cited YouTuber in the story. This is just about the 5th circuit decision on pistol braces, which struck down the ban on procedural grounds. The YouTuber is a master of SEO and clickbait.

 

At this point, I do not believe there is a 9-0 emergency cy order from SCOTUS stripping the ATF of powers.

 

MSN got had! And lots of other folks in our community are still getting had. I think the only reason to not ask the moderators for thread deletion is to counteract the false news still spreading. I'm still getting alerts and questions.

 

What is for sure real: The 5th threw out the pistol brace ban on procedural, not 2A grounds, and this only after bouncing up and down in the circuit several times. There is no change in ATF powers. There is no SCOTUS emergency order. The government will likely appeal the judgement. Business as usual.

[John Kloehr]

I think the "reporter" is a college intern... For reasons.

[Sedalia Dave]

13 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

I think the "reporter" is a college intern... For reasons.

 

Bet the reporters Nom de Plume is ChatGP

[John Kloehr]

Update:

 

CNN posted what looks to be a real report. 
 

6-3 decision by SCOTUS overturning bumpstock ban. 
 

I may not have time to look close for a couple days, will need to also read the dissenting opinions. 
 

Looks to be a procedural ruling (APA or related), not a 2A ruling. 
 

Is SCOTUS, is not 9-0, does not look like an emergency order. Does look like the report which prompted this thread had something more than coincidence to it. 

[Itchy Trigger]

Article

 

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks | CNN Politics

 

[John Kloehr]

From Alito's concurrence (my bold):

 

"There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U.S.C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it."

 

Have not got to the dissent yet.

 

Full ruling here:

 

 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

 

 

[John Kloehr]

Read the dissent.

 

My summary...

 

The majority holds congress did not define a machine gun to include bump stocks. The majority interpreted the text. Congress could amend the law, the court does not have the power to do so..

 

The minority opines it is close enough that congress would have included it if it had envisaged such a device, so congress intended bump stocks to be machine guns. So interpreting congressional intent rather than interpreting legislative text.

 

I do side with the majority but recognize this is not a 2A ruling, this is another case where the ATF overstepped beyond legislative text. Congress can write new laws or expand existing ones.

 

The bump stock question is not resolved. Both the 5th with the pistol brace ruling and SCOTUS with this ruling have tossed the ball back to the legislative branch. If Congress enacts laws which encompass braces or bump stocks, then the ATF can write rules interpreting those laws. This gets past the APA and similar considerations and moves towards actual 2A considerations.

[J.D. Daily]

The majority opinion doesn't state that Congress could amend the NFA adding bump stocks to arms requiring registration.  Alito's concurring opinion mentions this option.  If the language makes them covered by the Hughes Amendment it would violate Heller & Bruen because the Hughes Amendment wouldn't allow the people to register a bump stock therefore it is a ban. 

Heller states for the government to ban an arm it must be both dangerous and unusual.  When the text of the NFA is challenged all the plaintiffs have to show is the amended text violates the 2nd Amendment text.  The governments burden is to prove bump stocks are unusual.  Caetano v. MA defines unusual as less than 200,000.   There is a catch 22 situation here.  It only takes approximately 25,000 bump stocks to reach 200,000 transferable machine guns (includes drop-in auto sears, etc.).  At 200,000 all it would take is a plaintiff to sue to remove machine guns from the NFA citing Caetano.  If Congress didn't allow registering bump stocks the "ban" would be challenged for violating Bruen.  The violation is the regulation doesn't have a historical tradition (founding era*) analog or similar infringement; therefore it is unconstitutional.

*It isn't clear that Thomas included the time between the founding and start of Reconstruction.  It will take a appropriate case in the future to clarify this.

P.S.  Any attempt by Congress to regulated bump stocks will open Pandora's Box allowing the revising of the NFA, GCA & FOPA.  I.E. removing suppressors, SBR's & SBS's.  The Hughes amendment would have to go unless all those who own(ed) bump stocks are compensated for the government taking their lawfully owned property.