Biden loses ‘ghost gun’ case, ATF ban ‘unlawful’ | Washington Examiner
2 Likes
HA!!! Love our SCOTUS 
2 Likes
So, it’s just another documented example of the “administration” breaking the law. It must be Tuesday.
If you or I break the law there are immediate and definite consequences. Not so much for the regime.
1 Like
That’s why so many on the left are clamoring to pack the court. They are tired of having their plans foiled, and want to make the judiciary subservient to their will.
2 Likes
Political parties of both stripes want the courts and unelected, unaccountable judges in government jobs for life to make law (so long as they agree with those laws). The will claim to be champions of “the people” but are OK with judges making law.
This was not a SCOTUS decision. This was a federal district court in Texas, and this did not hinge on constitutional/unconstitutional. It has to do with the procedures of the government, so this is decided only on statutory grounds, not constitutionality. But since the statutory grounds are found to be not valid, the entire “frames and receivers rule” is vacated. ATF does not have the ability to redefine what a frame and receiver is, because it is already clearly defined in law and common usage. They also don’t have jurisdiction on regulating gun parts.
This is a kick in the teeth to the administration, and probably will have serious repercussions on the pistol brace rule, since that is also a firearms part. It will be interesting to see how this “bleeds through” to other cases and precedent.
3 Likes
Here’s Tom Grieve giving his take on the situation.
How about putting that to a test rather than simply opining about whether the ATF is acting lawfully. Call the ATF and tell them that you possess a brace that fits on your unregistered ghost gun. Tell them that these are legal because the internet says so.
Be sure to give them your name and address, 'cause these are government employees, after all and probably cannot find you based on caller ID.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get to, or what the point of your reply to my post is. My posts were only explaining the information that has been coming out from the actual court documents - in this case about the frames & receivers rule, not the pistol brace rule. If you don’t mind explaining, maybe we can have a productive conversation.
I might be wrong, but I think he’s suggesting that this current biden regime has a history of ignoring court orders, laws and the Constitution
1 Like