Rules for thee
2024-04-22 19:46:29 UTC
Reply
PermalinkSupreme Court to Hear Challenge to Biden 'Ghost Gun' Rule
The high court previously reversed lower court orders blocking the
regulation of guns that can be assembled at home.
The Supreme Court agreed on April 22 to consider the Biden
administration's rule regulating so-called ghost guns that can be
assembled at home.
Oral arguments in the high-profile case are likely to take place in
the fall.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court reinstated the rule, which lower
courts had enjoined.
"Ghost gun" is a pejorative term used by gun control advocates to
describe a homemade firearm that lacks a serial number and therefore
can't be tracked by law enforcement.
Although some states regulate homemade guns, gun control groups have
been trying for years to ban or regulate homemade guns at the federal
level but have failed to persuade the U.S. Congress to act.
President Joe Biden has claimed that privately made guns, which are
often made with gun kits, are the "weapons of choice for many
criminals."
The government's "frame or receiver" rule dates to April 2022. It
requires individuals who assemble homemade firearms to add serial
numbers to them. The rule also mandates background checks for
consumers who buy gun-assembly kits from dealers.
Pieces of guns that are shipped are nonetheless guns subject to
existing laws, the government argues.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, or review, in
Garland v. Vanderstok in an unsigned order. No justices dissented.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF)
brought the lawsuit challenging the "frame or receiver" rule that is
being implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF).
"FPC and our members look forward to the end of President Biden's
unconstitutional and abusive rule. We are delighted that the Supreme
Court will hear our case and decide this important issue once and for
all," FPC founder and President Brandon Combs said in a statement.
A lower court decision in the case blocking the rule "was correct and
now that victory can be applied to the entire country."
"This is an important day for the entire liberty movement. By agreeing
to hear our case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to put
ATF firmly in its place and stop the agency from unconstitutionally
expanding its gun control agenda," said FPC Action Foundation
President Cody J. Wisniewski, who acts as counsel for the plaintiffs
in the case.
"We look forward to addressing this unlawful rule in the court's next
term," he added.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an injunction in Garland v.
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. allowing the Biden administration
to enforce the rule regulating guns.
Before that, Justice Samuel Alito had administratively stayed a Sept.
14, 2023, order of U.S. Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas that blocked the rule. On July 5,
Judge O'Connor entered an injunction after finding that the regulation
violated existing law.
The judge found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF), which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), went beyond its statutory jurisdiction in regulating "partially
manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other
tools and materials."
The rule "is unlawful agency action," the judge found at that time.
On July 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied
the government's request to stay the lower court's order blocking the
rule "because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of
success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay."
The issue came before the Supreme Court on Aug. 8, 2023, when a 5-4
split on the nation's highest court allowed the government's rule on
ghost guns to remain in place while an appeal of the injunction was
pending in the 5th Circuit.
Four conservative justices-Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil
Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh-dissented from the decision.
Two conservatives-Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney
Barrett-joined the court's three liberals-Justices Sonia Sotomayor,
Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson-in voting to allow the rule to
remain in effect for the time being.
Then on Sept. 14, 2023, Judge O'Connor issued an order narrowing his
injunction to cover 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed, two
companies involved in the litigation, along with their customers.
The Justice Department told the 5th Circuit that the district judge
was ignoring the Supreme Court's order.
On Oct. 2, 2023, the 5th Circuit issued a ruling indicating it
disagreed with the DOJ's contention but also found that the injunction
"sweeps too broadly."
"Injunctions that afford relief to non-parties are potentially
problematic. And it appears the district court's injunction sweeps too
broadly insofar as it affords relief to non-party customers."
Nevertheless, the court found, "The party-plaintiff manufacturers
would be irreparably harmed by being forced to shut down their
companies or by being arrested pending judicial review of the Final
Rule."
Although it vacated the injunction as it applied to gun kit customers,
the court said it did so based on the Biden administration's
assurances that it "will not enforce the Final Rule against customers
who purchase regulated 'frames or receivers' and who are otherwise
lawfully entitled to purchase firearms."
The circuit court also suggested Judge O'Connor could revisit the
matter and broaden his injunction should the administration break its
promise not to enforce the rule against customers.
"Of course, if circumstances change, the district court is free to
narrowly tailor injunctive relief to meet the changed circumstances,"
the 5th Circuit stated.
"But as things stand today, the Government is correct that the
injunction cannot extend to non-party customers."
The circuit court added that the plaintiffs who brought the action
against the rule are "likely to succeed on the merits because the
Final Rule is contrary to law."
The Supreme Court did not explain its April 22 decision. At least four
of the nine justices must vote to grant a petition for it to move
forward to the oral argument stage.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-bid
en-ghost-gun-rule-5634530
Biden and his administration again demonstrate that they do not intend toThe high court previously reversed lower court orders blocking the
regulation of guns that can be assembled at home.
The Supreme Court agreed on April 22 to consider the Biden
administration's rule regulating so-called ghost guns that can be
assembled at home.
Oral arguments in the high-profile case are likely to take place in
the fall.
In October 2023, the Supreme Court reinstated the rule, which lower
courts had enjoined.
"Ghost gun" is a pejorative term used by gun control advocates to
describe a homemade firearm that lacks a serial number and therefore
can't be tracked by law enforcement.
Although some states regulate homemade guns, gun control groups have
been trying for years to ban or regulate homemade guns at the federal
level but have failed to persuade the U.S. Congress to act.
President Joe Biden has claimed that privately made guns, which are
often made with gun kits, are the "weapons of choice for many
criminals."
The government's "frame or receiver" rule dates to April 2022. It
requires individuals who assemble homemade firearms to add serial
numbers to them. The rule also mandates background checks for
consumers who buy gun-assembly kits from dealers.
Pieces of guns that are shipped are nonetheless guns subject to
existing laws, the government argues.
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, or review, in
Garland v. Vanderstok in an unsigned order. No justices dissented.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF)
brought the lawsuit challenging the "frame or receiver" rule that is
being implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF).
"FPC and our members look forward to the end of President Biden's
unconstitutional and abusive rule. We are delighted that the Supreme
Court will hear our case and decide this important issue once and for
all," FPC founder and President Brandon Combs said in a statement.
A lower court decision in the case blocking the rule "was correct and
now that victory can be applied to the entire country."
"This is an important day for the entire liberty movement. By agreeing
to hear our case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to put
ATF firmly in its place and stop the agency from unconstitutionally
expanding its gun control agenda," said FPC Action Foundation
President Cody J. Wisniewski, who acts as counsel for the plaintiffs
in the case.
"We look forward to addressing this unlawful rule in the court's next
term," he added.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Supreme Court issued an injunction in Garland v.
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. allowing the Biden administration
to enforce the rule regulating guns.
Before that, Justice Samuel Alito had administratively stayed a Sept.
14, 2023, order of U.S. Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas that blocked the rule. On July 5,
Judge O'Connor entered an injunction after finding that the regulation
violated existing law.
The judge found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF), which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), went beyond its statutory jurisdiction in regulating "partially
manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other
tools and materials."
The rule "is unlawful agency action," the judge found at that time.
On July 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied
the government's request to stay the lower court's order blocking the
rule "because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of
success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay."
The issue came before the Supreme Court on Aug. 8, 2023, when a 5-4
split on the nation's highest court allowed the government's rule on
ghost guns to remain in place while an appeal of the injunction was
pending in the 5th Circuit.
Four conservative justices-Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil
Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh-dissented from the decision.
Two conservatives-Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney
Barrett-joined the court's three liberals-Justices Sonia Sotomayor,
Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson-in voting to allow the rule to
remain in effect for the time being.
Then on Sept. 14, 2023, Judge O'Connor issued an order narrowing his
injunction to cover 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed, two
companies involved in the litigation, along with their customers.
The Justice Department told the 5th Circuit that the district judge
was ignoring the Supreme Court's order.
On Oct. 2, 2023, the 5th Circuit issued a ruling indicating it
disagreed with the DOJ's contention but also found that the injunction
"sweeps too broadly."
"Injunctions that afford relief to non-parties are potentially
problematic. And it appears the district court's injunction sweeps too
broadly insofar as it affords relief to non-party customers."
Nevertheless, the court found, "The party-plaintiff manufacturers
would be irreparably harmed by being forced to shut down their
companies or by being arrested pending judicial review of the Final
Rule."
Although it vacated the injunction as it applied to gun kit customers,
the court said it did so based on the Biden administration's
assurances that it "will not enforce the Final Rule against customers
who purchase regulated 'frames or receivers' and who are otherwise
lawfully entitled to purchase firearms."
The circuit court also suggested Judge O'Connor could revisit the
matter and broaden his injunction should the administration break its
promise not to enforce the rule against customers.
"Of course, if circumstances change, the district court is free to
narrowly tailor injunctive relief to meet the changed circumstances,"
the 5th Circuit stated.
"But as things stand today, the Government is correct that the
injunction cannot extend to non-party customers."
The circuit court added that the plaintiffs who brought the action
against the rule are "likely to succeed on the merits because the
Final Rule is contrary to law."
The Supreme Court did not explain its April 22 decision. At least four
of the nine justices must vote to grant a petition for it to move
forward to the oral argument stage.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-bid
en-ghost-gun-rule-5634530
honor the US Constitution.