- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged scotus
Supreme Court To Hear Mexican Gov’t Lawsuit
From Guns.com:
First filed in 2021, the $10 billion suit – supported by no less than a dozen anti-gun states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois – sought to put some of the biggest names in the American gun industry including Barrett, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson on the hook for the out-of-control narco cartel violence that has plagued Mexico since 2006.
A federal judge tossed the suit in October 2022, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prevented the claim, but Mexico pushed the issue and appealed to the Massachusetts-based U.S. First Circuit Court, which kept the case alive and handed the issue to a lower court in Boston.
How Will The Chevron Decision Affect Gun Owners
From Ammoland:
“Hopefully, it tones down all of the administrative agencies because it returns power to the judiciary. It should tone down the ATF just like the rest. They can no longer adjudicate their own rules and say, ‘we’re right because we said we’re right.’
Supreme Court To Hear DIY Gun Case
From The Truth About Guns:
The case, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenges the Department of Justice’s 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.
How Will Chevron Affect The ATF?
From Bearing Arms:
The Supreme Court’s decision to scrap the Chevron Doctrine doesn’t automatically mean that the ATF’s rules on unfinished frames and receivers, pistol stabilizing braces, and who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms will be thrown out by the federal judiciary, but it definitely makes it more difficult for the DOJ to defend the rules going forward.
No longer can the agency reliy on judges giving the agency the benefit of the doubt when it come to interpreting supposedly ambiguous language. Unless the ATF is strictly adhering to the underlying statute when crafting its rules (which has not been the case in recent years) the odds are good that the rule will fall.
Supreme Court Overturns “Chevron”, Restraining Power Of Bureaucrats
From The Truth About Guns:
The Supreme Court’s decision is particularly noteworthy for gun owners, as it curtails the regulatory authority of the ATF. The ruling effectively limits the ATF’s ability to interpret and enforce regulations without explicit congressional authorization, even when pushed by a presidential administration hostile to the Second Amendment.
Upcoming SCOTUS Gun Cases
From Bearing Arms:
For months now, the Court has held on to a half-dozen other cases that all deal with prohibited persons; from Range v. Garland (whether someone can be permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm after a non-violent misdemeanor conviction punishable by more than a year in prison) to U.S. v. Daniels (whether federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violates the Second Amendment). After the release of the Rahimi decision, the Court is almost certainly going to address these cases through what’s known as a GVR: grant cert, vacate the previous decision, and remand the case back to the lower courts for further review in light of Rahimi‘s holding.
SCOTUS Bump Stock Opinion Breakdown
From Open Source Defense:
On Friday the Supreme Court struck down the ATF’s bump stock ban. Let’s break down the justices’ opinions and the implications.
Clarence Thomas writes for a 6-3 majority, and the overriding theme of his opinion is that this is not a hard case. Under the NFA, a machine gun is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger”. Bump stocks are simply not that. That’s obvious if and only if you know how a bump stock works. Thomas explains that by explaining how an AR-15’s fire control group works.
SCOTUS Nixes Bump Stock Ban
From The Truth About Guns:
In his opinion for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote what most people who understand and are familiar with firearms have been thinking all along.
“Semi-automatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machine guns,” Justice Thomas wrote. “This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a ‘machine gun.’ We hold that it does not.
Zealots Manufacture Supreme Court Controversies To Get Their Way
From The Truth About Guns:
Just last week, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected a request by U.S. Senate Democrats to meet to talk about Supreme Court ethics and a ginned-up controversy over Justice Samuel Alito flying flags outside his homes in Alexandria, Va., and Long Island Beach, N.J. The first incident stemmed from a 2021 dispute with a neighbor who personally targeted Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, seemingly as a form of protesting the violence of Jan. 6. Mrs. Alito made the sole decision to fly an inverted flag at their Virginia residence in response to a neighbor’s pointed attacks. More manufactured controversy stemmed from Mrs. Alito flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at their New Jersey residence in 2023, despite San Francisco’s City Hall flying a similar flag, only to quietly take it down last month after the media uproar.
Supreme Court Rahimi Decision More Important With Trump Conviction
From Bearing Arms:
I think there’s an incredibly strong change that Trump’s conviction will be thrown out on appeal, but that could still be years away. In the meantime, the Supreme Court is probably Trump’s best bet to keep his Second Amendment rights intact, and the Court’s impeding decision in U.S. v. Rahimi provides a perfect vehicle for the justices to give Trump and others convicted of non-violent felonies relief from current federal law.
In Rahimi, the justices are expected to decide whether someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order can be prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm. We don’t know how the Court will rule, but it’s certainly not out of the question that a majority will conclude that Zachey Rahimi and others in similar circumstances can be barred from owning a gun; not solely because of a domestic violence restraining order, but based on a particularized finding of “dangerousness”.
Corporate Press Hates America and It’s Founding Symbols
From The Federalist:
The meaning behind the “An Appeal To Heaven” flag, a pine-tree-adorned symbol used by squadrons of the Continental Navy during the Revolutionary War, is rather innocuous. George Washington’s secretary Col. Joseph Reed created the flag in 1775 to publicly display “an appeal to God to save the colonists from the King’s oppressive ruling.”
The same outlets fomenting fake scandal about the alleged Alito flag have never taken issue with any Americans displaying Black Lives Matter, Ukraine, pro-terrorist, and rainbow flags, despite their connections to anti-American agitation. The New York Times, however, suggested the historic “An Appeal To Heaven” flag was associated with a “push for a more Christian-minded government.”
Gun Companies Want Supreme Court To Toss Mexican Lawsuit
From The Truth About Guns:
The industry defendants in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., have asked the Supreme Court to consider two questions – whether the lawful production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from cartel-driven violence and if that also amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because Mexico alleges these manufacturers know their products are unlawfully trafficked.