Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

ATF Stripped of power, SCOTUS 9-0 Emergency Order


Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by John Kloehr
Calling BS on MSN story
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

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

 

 

Edited by John Kloehr
mot? Otto?
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by John Kloehr
Monority? Come on, Otto!
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.