Judge blocks new ATF rule

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

OK Corgi Rancher

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
7,733
Reaction score
24,435
Location
Greater Francis, OK metropolitan area
I'd still oppose the move on constitutional grounds, but if ATF really wanted to implement this, they'd petition Congress to make obtaining an FFL "shall issue" with no cost to obtain.

I think the plaintiffs are on the right track in making the brunt of their argument the ATF violated the administrative rules procedure and made this rule in violation of that...throwing the 2A in as a lesser violation, so to speak. It's a violation that's a lot easier to prove, and reading the statute practically proves the case in and of itself. It also might lead to a SCOTUS ruling that b**chslaps the ATF so they don't do this in the future. The lawsuit now clearly shows the ATF violated the law and the scope of their authority in drafting and implementing this rule and I think that's why the court/judge ruled this lawsuit would likely succeed and issued the injunction. And there was that recent (last couple of years, maybe) SCOTUS ruling in WV(?) (don't remember for sure) against the EPA that said basically the same thing. It's a good precedent.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,617
Reaction score
16,269
Location
Collinsville
I think the plaintiffs are on the right track in making the brunt of their argument the ATF violated the administrative rules procedure and made this rule in violation of that...throwing the 2A in as a lesser violation, so to speak. It's a violation that's a lot easier to prove, and reading the statute practically proves the case in and of itself. It also might lead to a SCOTUS ruling that b**chslaps the ATF so they don't do this in the future. The lawsuit now clearly shows the ATF violated the law and the scope of their authority in drafting and implementing this rule and I think that's why the court/judge ruled this lawsuit would likely succeed and issued the injunction. And there was that recent (last couple of years, maybe) SCOTUS ruling in WV(?) (don't remember for sure) against the EPA that said basically the same thing. It's a good precedent.
You're referring to WV vs. EPA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA

Another pending ruling may bolster this case next month in: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.
In those cases, it's fishermen vs. National Marine Fisheries Service, which forces them to pay independent "observers" to be on their boats to prove compliance with federal law. SCOTUS appears set to overturn the Chevron Doctrine due to the NMFS overreach.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/

The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases challenging a rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, that requires the herring industry to bear the costs of observers on fishing boats. Applying Chevron, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the rule, finding it to be a reasonable interpretation of federal law.

The fishing companies came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in on the rule itself but also to overrule Chevron. Roman Martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices that the Chevron doctrine undermines the duty of courts to say what the law is and violates the federal law governing administrative agencies, which similarly requires courts to undertake a fresh review of legal questions. Under the Chevron doctrine, he observed, even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is “not consistent with the rule of law.”

Simply put, ATF's own restrictions on obtaining a Federal Firearms License, contradict their assertions in this latest overreach.

As an amusing aside, the leftist Justices are arguing to keep the Chevron doctrine in place in support of NMFS, but their own (and CJ Roberts) ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius undercuts their position. In that case they observed that Obamacare was a TAX by Congress and not a regulatory agency overreach.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5–4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power).
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,228
Reaction score
9,325
Location
Yukon

geezer77

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
128
Reaction score
251
Location
Mustang
Scenario: 90 year old man with a couple of dozen pistols, rifles, and shotguns collected over many years, dies of natural causes. His 88 year old wife, who now is suddenly the Executor of his estate, has nothing against guns, but doesn't care for them and knows nothing about them. Yet by this insane rule the ATF demands she obtain a FFL, become a full-fledged gun dealer, and submit 4473's on every adult child and grandchild to whom she'd like to gift those guns? Tell me this can't be.
 

okcBob

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,716
Reaction score
9,260
Location
okc
Scenario: 90 year old man with a couple of dozen pistols, rifles, and shotguns collected over many years, dies of natural causes. His 88 year old wife, who now is suddenly the Executor of his estate, has nothing against guns, but doesn't care for them and knows nothing about them. Yet by this insane rule the ATF demands she obtain a FFL, become a full-fledged gun dealer, and submit 4473's on every adult child and grandchild to whom she'd like to gift those guns? Tell me this can't be.
This CAN’T be.
If she is gifting, there is no profit. So the “in the business” rule doesn’t apply
 

OK Corgi Rancher

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
7,733
Reaction score
24,435
Location
Greater Francis, OK metropolitan area
This CAN’T be.
If she is gifting, there is no profit. So the “in the business” rule doesn’t apply

Not according to the lawyers I've heard discussing this. More than one has said you may not even be safe selling your guns thru a dealer. I believe it was the Armed Attys and WA Gun Law on YT. Even trading could be construed to be "in the business" under this rule. This is, plain and simple, an attempt to not only enact universal background checks it's an attempt to stop private citizens from disposing of guns. They're enacting thru "rules" what they haven't been able to get thru legislation.

Granny needs to get her license like everyone else. NO EXCEPTIONS!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom