Short barrel rifle and silencer restrictions ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Just saw a post on the NRA-ILA site that a Federal judge in Texas has declared the restrictions on short barreled rifles, shotguns, silencers and AOWs are unconstitutional because of the tax on them being reduced to zero.

This is interesting.   I'm not gonna run out and cut the barrel on my 86 Mare's Leg, yet, as I think it'll take time for it to be clear that this ruling applied nationwide, but it does look promising.

But the scary part is if the tax is ever reinstated, that may mean that the registration and other restrictions come back as well.  So, I wait...

[Sedalia Dave]

The Court issued a 7 day stay to give the government time to file an appeal.

[Blackwater 53393]

At this point, the ruling only effects the named plaintiffs and their members and those of the organizations named in the suit. It’s only valid within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

 

Thats’s for now and only if the stay is lifted or no challenge is made to the ruling.

 

SO! STAY TUNED!!

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Just saw a post on the NRA-ILA site that a Federal judge in Texas has declared the restrictions on short barreled rifles, shotguns, silencers and AOWs are unconstitutional because of the tax on them being reduced to zero.

An excellent tax powers ruling but not AOWs. The judge clearly stated the ruling does not apply to AOWs as no plaintiff had standing on this point. That "quibble" aside, there is nothing about AOWs or the ruling which conflict. It is just as unconstitutional in regards to AOWs for the same reasons, there was just no legal basis presented to make that finding.

 

See my reply to a thread in Team Sass.

[Texas Joker]

44 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

At this point, the ruling only effects the named plaintiffs and their members and those of the organizations named in the suit. It’s only valid within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

 

Thats’s for now and only if the stay is lifted or no challenge is made to the ruling.

 

SO! STAY TUNED!!

How can something be unconstitutional in just 1 district?

[Blackwater 53393]

1 hour ago, Texas Joker said:

How can something be unconstitutional in just 1 district?

It’s a jurisdictional issue!! That’s why cases go to SCOTUS. For example.  The fifth circuit and the third circuit disagree with the ninth and second circuit. The matter is then usually elevated to SCOTUS to be finally adjudicated across all jurisdictions!

 

It’s just the way it works!

 

 

Edited Thursday at 03:25 AM by Blackwater 53393

[Doc Shapiro]

1 minute ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

It’s a jurisdictional issue!! That’s why cases go to SCOTUS. The fifth circuit and the third circuit disagree with the ninth and second circuit. The matter is then usually elevated to SCOTUS to be finally adjudicated across all jurisdictions!

 

It’s just the way it works!

 

Aye.  When lower courts disagree on an issue, it ends up at a higher court.  It's the way the system works.