Posts Tagged ‘Firearms Policy Coalition’

“Ghost Gun” Ban Headed To Supreme Court

Monday, April 22nd, 2024

Another ill-conceived bit of DOJ gun regulation is now headed to the Supreme Court.

After the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) promulgated a rule to regulate home-built firearm kits, or what the Biden administration calls “ghost guns,” two Texas residents filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule that will now be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Biden Administration and other gun-grabbing Democrats call them “ghost guns” because they are literally, by law, not guns. They’re unfinished 80% receiver kits, or build kids that you must finish at home on a milling machine, 3D printer, etc. American citizens building their own guns without the approval of the federal government (which has only occurred since, oh, about 1873) promises to thwart their plans of complete civilian disarmament, hence “ghost gun” regulations.

Represented by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the lawsuit from plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren contends the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded the boundaries of federal law by implementing the new rules, which treat unfinished firearm kits as finished firearms and requires all firearms to possess a serial number.

The DOJ argued it simply wants to make sure the unfinished parts kits are treated like any other firearm and says implementation of the rule will not prevent anyone who is lawfully allowed to possess a gun from obtaining one. Those wanting to buy one would need to undergo the regular process to purchase any firearm, which includes a background check.

The plaintiffs disagree, writing in their SCOTUS brief that they believe the federal government’s goal in implementing the rule isn’t to simply regulate the firearm kit industry, but to get rid of it.

“The expected result of ATF’s Rule was not simply to regulate this industry but to destroy it,” the FPC wrote, pointing to a communication from the ATF to the FBI regarding the rule’s effect.

“The ATF informed the FBI that the Rule should not be expected to significantly impact the background check system because “many parts kit manufacturers and dealers will go out of business,” the brief continued.

Both a federal judge in North Texas and subsequently the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs in challenging the rule, prompting the DOJ to file an appeal with SCOTUS.

On Monday, SCOTUS granted a review of the case for its fall term, setting up a final legal showdown between the gun rights groups and the federal government on the issue.

In previous Supreme Court cases on the legality of various firearms sale and registration acts, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution has typically done a lot of heavy lifting. However, someone producing a gun in their own workshop for personal use and not to sell in another state, would not seem to fall under the purvey of federal regulation were it not for the radical expansion of federal power to stick it’s nose into every possible affair of private citizens afford by such post-New Deal decisions as Wickard vs. Filburn.

Maybe the Supreme Court will finally use this opportunity to reign in the federal government’s unlegislated regulatory powers based on vague, unenumerated Commerce Clause rationales.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Guns, Regulation, Supreme Court, Texas | 9 Comments »

ATF Pistol Brace Regulations Blocked

Tuesday, October 10th, 2023

In another small victory in the war against ATF overreach, a federal judge has blocked ATF regulations on pistol braces.

After the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a challenge to the Biden administration’s rule regulating pistol braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR) would likely prevail, a district judge entered orders enforcing the appeals court’s findings — blocking any enforcement against the plaintiffs, their customers, or their families.

The case, styled Mock v Garland, was brought against the Department of Justice by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge the reclassification of popular pistol braces as SBRs, which are heavily regulated weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA). That law requires extensive background checks, a $200 tax that in some cases takes over a year to pay, and carries additional restrictions on the firearm.

Violating any of the nuanced rules in the NFA can subject the owners to heavy fines and penalties.

While the district court had initially denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, the instructions from the 5th Circuit instructed the district judge to grant the request in a manner consistent with their findings.

On October 2, Judge Reed O’Connor issued the order blocking enforcement of the law against the individual plaintiffs, FPC and their members, pistol brace manufacturer Maxim Defense, and their customers and families.

The lawsuit will now proceed to trial, along with challenges brought by several other gun rights groups in separate cases seeking to have the rule struck down entirely.

As I’ve stated before, the pistol brace rule would retroactively make millions of law-abiding Americans criminals for not registering them (which, for the left, is no doubt the point). Government agencies should not be able to unilaterally and retroactively declare ownership of legally obtained goods suddenly forbidden on penalty of law.

This ruling is also another example of why the black-pilled “Republicans are useless” mutterings are wrong. Without Reagan, Bush41, Bush43 and Trump judicial appointments, it’s overwhelmingly likely that none of the landmark Second Amendment cases (Heller, Bruen) go our way, and ruling Democrats would be busy working on complete disarmament of American citizens.

It’s important to celebrate every victory for freedom, no matter how small.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Guns, Regulation, Texas | 8 Comments »

California’s Gun Grabbers Screw Themselves

Wednesday, July 20th, 2022

In an attempt to subvert the Supreme Court’s clear directions in the Bruen decision, California’s gun grabbing Democrats have actually made their case weaker through their own arguments. Armed Scholar Anthony Miranda:

Some takeaways:

  • “The state of California just backed themselves into a major corner in the California ‘assault weapons’ ban case, Miller v Bonta.”
  • California “requested that the Ninth Circuit vacate Judge [Roger] Benitez’s ruling and remand the case back down to him for him to have to completely rehear the case all over again from square one. This was the State of California’s effort to stall this case out as long as possible because that’s really one of the only cards they have left.”
  • “[Firearms Policy Coalition] just obliterated all the State of California’s arguments in their reply, and they completely trapped the State of California with their own words.”
  • In short, California was still trying to argue that the two-step approach to exercising Second Amendment would be upheld on appeal despite the fact that the Supreme Court had explicitly bitch-slapped the two-step approach into oblivion.
  • California also falsely announced that in striking down the two-step approach, the Supreme Court had created a new legal framework, when in fact they had merely explicitly affirmed the existing framework of Heller.
  • The district court “found that California’s ban on modern firearms was not one of the presumptively lawful measures that was identified in Heller, and also found that the ban on modern firearms has no historical pedigree.”
  • To whit: “Prior to the 1990s, there was no national history of banning weapons because they were equipped with features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, flare launchers or barrel shrouds.”
  • “Benitez ultimately found that those arguments were exactly the type that the Supreme Court and Heller broadly caution courts against when deciding whether analogous regulations were long-standing. Something that was put in place or didn’t pop up until the 1930s or the 1940s or 50s doesn’t actually align with the historical pedigree that the supreme
    court commands that courts must look at.”

  • California “acts as if Judge Benitez did not consider text as informed by history, when in fact he actually did in his original ruling. Also, all the harm California claims that will be suffered if the state is lifted has also been found 100% illegitimate prior by Benitez himself.”

    • It would be nice if the citizens of California could enjoy the Second Amendment rights enjoyed by American citizens in the overwhelming majority of the other 49 states…

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Democrats, Supreme Court, video | 15 Comments »