SCOTUS grants Cert in Garland v Cargill

[SpudmanWP]

SCOTUS grants cert Cargill.....

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1720500272395391087?s=20

[Bhobbs]

I wonder if the will go the path of least resistance, saying the ATF can’t ban bump stocks because they don’t meet the definition of machine gun, instead of applying the 2A.

[AlmostHeaven]

Oh my God! The Supreme Court even granted certiorari to National Rifle Association v. Vullo, a case challenging state government guidance instructing banks and insurance companies to consider dealing with the gun industry as a reputational risk!

This is fantastic news, even if not the blockbuster assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban lawsuit for which the Second Amendment community has been waiting.

[Fyathyrio]

I wonder if the will go the path of least resistance, saying the ATF can?t ban bump stocks because they don?t meet the definition of machine gun, instead of applying the 2A.

The USSC just gave us a nice 2A ruling last year, I doubt they will use 2A on this case. I think that's a good thing . . .

Chevron deference is a common way for the admin to get it's way, they have already taken the fishing industry case to kill that.

Here, ATF has gone crazy and is suddenly re-imagining everything that was once legal as illegal. Frames/receivers, pistol braces, as well as bumpstocks. These can all be killed with the same decision, no allowing the .gov to use the APA as cover for anything they can't use Chevron for.

So, hopefully, by next July we'll have the 2A meaning what it says, Chevron will be dead and congress must be clear, and APA reach will be minimized. ATF will be, if not neutered . . . they will only be plying with one "marble."

I think that combination is a much better outcome than another 2A ruling alone.

[deckhandmike]

So de we get bump stocks in CA?

[AlmostHeaven]

The USSC just gave us a nice 2A ruling last year, I doubt they will use 2A on this case. I think that's a good thing . . .

Chevron deference is a common way for the admin to get it's way, they have already taken the fishing industry case to kill that.

Here, ATF has gone crazy and is suddenly re-imagining everything that was once legal as illegal. Frames/receivers, pistol braces, as well as bumpstocks. These can all be killed with the same decision, no allowing the .gov to use the APA as cover for anything they can't use Chevron for.

So, hopefully, by next July we'll have the 2A meaning what it says, Chevron will be dead and congress must be clear, and APA reach will be minimized. ATF will be, if not neutered . . . they will only be plying with one "marble."

I think that combination is a much better outcome than another 2A ruling alone.

One dares to hope for all this as well as a narrow ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

[AlmostHeaven]

So de we get bump stocks in CA?

No. The Supreme Court has merely accepted a case for review, not made an actual decision on the issue.

[deckhandmike]

No. The Supreme Court has merely accepted a case for review, not made an actual decision on the issue.

Yeah, I know. But does there decision against the ATF effect us on the state level since they where already illegal in CA?

[SpudmanWP]

It would depend on "how" SCOTUS decides the case.

If they decide that the ATF overstepped their authority by redefining what a machine gun was due to that being a function of Congress, then it won't help CA.

If they decide that they violated the 2nd Amendment by not properly applying the Bruen THT test, then it would help us.

[AlmostHeaven]

It would depend on "how" SCOTUS decides the case.

If they decide that the ATF overstepped their authority by redefining what a machine gun was due to that being a function of Congress, then it won't help CA.

If they decide that they violated the 2nd Amendment by not properly applying the Bruen THT test, then it would help us.

The Supreme Court could avoid the Second Amendment altogether and simply rule that the ATF has no statutory authority to expand the scope of "machinegun" as defined by the National Firearms Act. In fact, I expect this exact outcome.

[XDJYo]

It would depend on "how" SCOTUS decides the case.

If they decide that the ATF overstepped their authority by redefining what a machine gun was due to that being a function of Congress, then it won't help CA.

If they decide that they violated the 2nd Amendment by not properly applying the Bruen THT test, then it would help us.

Call me cynical on that. The 9th keeps screwing and delaying. Even if it goes to SCOTUS and gets overturned, whos to say what other crappy law or reach-around they will do to oppress the 2A. Heck, look at SB2. Bruen was an overturn of just such a law in NY for making all of Manhattan a sensitive area and restricting CCW issuance.

[SpudmanWP]

I agree with @AlmostHeaven that they will likely rule based on the "statutory authority" angle rather than base it on a violation of 2A.

However, if they did base it on the Bruen THT test then they would certainly take the time to squash some of the arguments rouge courts are using to twist the Bruen test. This is especially true if Thomas writes the opinion.

[BlessedHunter]

Could this potentially become an "arms" case?

Defining "arms" to mean everything.......

Bump stocks, braces, suppressors, etc..

[AlmostHeaven]

Could this potentially become an "arms" case?

Defining "arms" to mean everything.......

Bump stocks, braces, suppressors, etc..

I find the possibility exceedingly unlikely that five Justices would want to use this case to strike down regulations on suppressors.

At most, the decision will kill the ATF rules governing bump stocks, pistol braces, and frames and receivers.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

I wonder if the will go the path of least resistance, saying the ATF can?t ban bump stocks because they don?t meet the definition of machine gun, instead of applying the 2A.

Legally the ATF can't ban anything. The way it is supposed to work is they make recommendations to Congress and then Congress votes on a law.