User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 9:35:54 AM EST
[#1]
https://www.scribd.com/document/404261634/Guedes-Codrea-Application-for-Second-Stay
attached is the second stay application filed with the US Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 9:38:13 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll take the slim chance that's true vs the for sure death by any other president. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't worry guys, 4D chess is going to unfold before our very eyes. Any minute now... I’ll wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 9:53:48 AM EST
[#3]
Thank You.
107 pages of legalese is confusing to me. Does this mean there will be another appeal? I'm guessing yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:12:18 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank You. 107 pages of legalese is confusing to me. Does this mean there will be another appeal? I'm guessing yes. After page 12 or so (going off memory) it's just exhibits. Currently, we are asking SCOTUS to stay the enforcement of the regulation in relation to the plaintiffs pending either a cert petition or petition for rehearing en banc (in front of CADC). So, yes, there are more "appeals" if you will but they are both at the discretion of the court as to whether they will be heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:12:44 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank You. 107 pages of legalese is confusing to me. Does this mean there will be another appeal? I'm guessing yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:14:26 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please provide a link to where Obama banned something 500k+ Americans owned, making them felons, requiring destruction/confiscation of their property without compensation? And I hate Obama. I’ll wait. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't worry guys, 4D chess is going to unfold before our very eyes. Any minute now... I’ll wait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:18:44 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.scribd.com/document/404261634/Guedes-Codrea-Application-for-Second-Stay attached is the second stay application filed with the US Supreme Court. 
Give 'em hell! 
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:20:32 AM EST
[#8]
Quoted: @hdhogman After page 12 or so (going off memory) it's just exhibits. Currently, we are asking SCOTUS to stay the enforcement of the regulation in relation to the plaintiffs pending either a cert petition or petition for rehearing en banc (in front of CADC). So, yes, there are more "appeals" if you will but they are both at the discretion of the court as to whether they will be heard. Quoted: Thanks for the continued fight, Nolo.
Give 'em hell!
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 10:38:52 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.scribd.com/document/404261634/Guedes-Codrea-Application-for-Second-Stay attached is the second stay application filed with the US Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 11:36:52 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for the continued fight, Nolo.
Give 'em hell!
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 11:57:49 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but that wasn't a win because Cleo notification became mandatory. Before 41F a trust could obtain an NFA item with no CLEO involvement at all, and add/remove beneficiaries without any fingerprints or background check. It was a net loss. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:04:22 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notification isn't signoff. You can pick which CLEO to notify, most pick the one most likely to just circular file the notification :-) The additional fingerprints are the big loss. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:07:45 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the filing of this automatically reinstate the stay on the enforcement of the bumpstock ban, or does it have to actually be approved by Roberts? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://www.scribd.com/document/404261634/Guedes-Codrea-Application-for-Second-Stay attached is the second stay application filed with the US Supreme Court. ...the administrative stay of the effective date of the Bump Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018), that was entered on the court’s own motion on March 23, 2019, will remain in effect for 48 hours from the time of the issuance of the opinion in this case to allow plaintiffs, if they wish, to seek a stay from the Supreme Court of the United States. Should plaintiffs do so, the administrative stay will remain in effect pending disposition of the stay application. Plaintiffs are directed to notify the court promptly should an application for a stay be filed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:10:33 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Notification isn't signoff. You can pick which CLEO to notify, most pick the one most likely to just circular file the notification :-) The additional fingerprints are the big loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:21:05 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and Josh Prince, Erik Jaffe and Adam Kraut (who is still running for NRA Board...) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Thanks for the continued fight, Nolo.
Give 'em hell!
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos. Thanks all |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:35:09 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do they even verify you 'notified' them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Notification isn't signoff. You can pick which CLEO to notify, most pick the one most likely to just circular file the notification :-) The additional fingerprints are the big loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:42:07 PM EST
[#17]
The signal to noise ratio in this thread is terrible. What does the update mean?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:46:16 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The signal to noise ratio in this thread is terrible. What does the update mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:46:58 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same thing FFL’s do. Send it USPS with a return receipt. They have to sign for it and you proof they did mailed back to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:51:43 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don’t think you actually have to do that. The law says you must forward a completed copy of the Form 1 or 4 to the CLEO, and you certify that this has been done when you sign the form. There is nothing in there requiring proof that they ever got it. Since you certified that you sent the form, they would have to prove that you didn’t actually send it to charge you with violating this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The same thing FFL’s do. Send it USPS with a return receipt. They have to sign for it and you proof they did mailed back to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 12:57:22 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I take it from Supermoose’s update that we are waiting for a decision from SCOTUS on the stay. Ruling said 48 but said if SCOTUS filing was made, it stays in effect until word from them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The signal to noise ratio in this thread is terrible. What does the update mean? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:00:34 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does SCOTUS have to take it?And if they do,what's the timeframe? Whenever they damn well feel like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:00:34 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Adam is the only one I voted for!!!! Thanks all 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:18:52 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CLEO signoffs were eliminated, and that was done under FBHO. Otherwise, I agree with your analysis, I don't like it but I agree that's reality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:27:49 PM EST
[#25]
No its wasted money
What insurance are you getting ? there is no need to prove you sent it just like using a bill of sale on a gun in TX its a waste of time Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m aware it’s not required. But is cheap insurance |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:28:40 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does SCOTUS have to take it?And if they do,what's the timeframe? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The signal to noise ratio in this thread is terrible. What does the update mean? You’ll see that the “conservative judges” are just like the rest of the RINOS. Ok with revolvers, shotguns, and bolt action rifles...that’s about it. I’m not holding my breath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:40:53 PM EST
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:43:06 PM EST
[#28]
All supreme court has to do is table the request for stay and never reply and the stay remains in effect forever for addressed parties? Not that this is likely but it would be an amusing quirk.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 1:52:44 PM EST
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2019 2:10:47 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Docketed at SCOTUS Hopefully Roberts gives this one more consideration than the last. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 6:59:06 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and SBR barrel length went from <18" to <16" as well, supposedly to legalize all the surplus M1 carbines. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 7:37:46 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty simple. The fight against the bump stock ban is not, and never has been, a fight for bump stocks. It is, and has always been, a fight against executive overreach. Congress has the power to ban bump stocks, and no one is going to go nuts if they do. They've already banned machine guns and no one is rebelling over it. The fight is against how this has been done, not what has been done or why. It also doesn't matter that many of us believe bump stocks should be legal and protected by the second amendment. Nor does it matter that some believe they are silly and should not. The only thing that matters is that we fight the abuse of power and try to force the government to respect its own established constraints of power. That's it. If we win and the rule is thrown out, and the very next day Congress passes identical language to ban bump stocks, WE STILL WON. I think over the past 18 months this may have been lost on some. It's easy to get caught up in the emotion of the discussion. So let me try and sum it up, at least based on having been part of this process since the morning of October 1st, 2017. It is critical that we fight the bump stock rule and win, because if the executive branch establishes a precedent of being able to rewrite gun laws without Congress they can go after things far more precious than bump stocks. If Congress had banned bump stocks we'd not be having this discussion. Victory is not measured in whether or not bump stocks are legal, but in preventing an overt act of executive overreach with terrifying potential precedent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 7:49:45 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and Josh Prince, Erik Jaffe and Adam Kraut (who is still running for NRA Board...) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Thanks for the continued fight, Nolo.
Give 'em hell!
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 9:21:54 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you gentlemen for fighting for our rights, we all appreciate it Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Thanks for the continued fight, Nolo.
Give 'em hell!
Patiently waiting for round 6 dillos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 9:28:37 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don’t think you actually have to do that. The law says you must forward a completed copy of the Form 1 or 4 to the CLEO, and you certify that this has been done when you sign the form. There is nothing in there requiring proof that they ever got it. Since you certified that you sent the form, they would have to prove that you didn’t actually send it to charge you with violating this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The same thing FFL’s do. Send it USPS with a return receipt. They have to sign for it and you proof they did mailed back to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 9:54:12 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait. People actually do this? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: The same thing FFL’s do. Send it USPS with a return receipt. They have to sign for it and you proof they did mailed back to you. CERTIFICATION: Under penalties imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 924 and 26 U.S.C. § 5861, I certify that, upon submission of this form to ATF, a completed copy of this
form will be directed to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) shown in item 10 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 12:09:56 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rifles have been 16" for as long as I can remember. Shotguns are 18". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 1:21:45 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Docketed at SCOTUS |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 1:27:10 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rifles have been 16" for as long as I can remember. Shotguns are 18". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... https://archive.org/stream/NationalFirearmsActOf1934/National_Firearms_Act_of_1934_djvu.txt ( a ) The ter . m " fir earm " means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel
of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explo- sive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition. this article mentions the change as well, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/23/1057310/- 2. Short-barreled rifle:
Originally, the NFA required rifles to be at least eighteen inches long. Some time after the Second World War and the Korean War, when the government realized that several hundred thousand non-military, non-police individuals possessed surplus M1 carbines without registration or a tax stamp, the NFA was changed so that 16" was the minimum requirement for a non-NFA weapon, as Miller clarified that the Second Amendment protected military-grade arms. Nowadays, the US Army uses the M4 carbine, which has a 14" barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 2:34:52 PM EST
[#40]
as Miller clarified that the Second Amendment protected military-grade arms.
Wait WUT?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 2:59:28 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as Miller clarified that the Second Amendment protected military-grade arms. Wait WUT?! I'm sure modern, sensible courts will see the true meaning of the 2A though, which is about sporting arms for fudds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 3:27:25 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, that is intradasting. I'm sure modern, sensible courts will see the true meaning of the 2A though, which is about sporting arms for fudds. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
as Miller clarified that the Second Amendment protected military-grade arms. Wait WUT?! I'm sure modern, sensible courts will see the true meaning of the 2A though, which is about sporting arms for fudds. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. when Heller was ruled some 60+ years later, you can actually see SCOTUS trying to block Miller so that we wouldn't be able to use it to legalize MGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 6:02:32 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but that wasn't a win because Cleo notification became mandatory. Before 41F a trust could obtain an NFA item with no CLEO involvement at all, and add/remove beneficiaries without any fingerprints or background check. It was a net loss. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is where I continue to make myself unpopular by keeping it real. Here are some truths that will result, in my opinion, in all this bump stock litigation sinking virtually all semi-autos in general in the long run. ... 9. Anyone who doubts the last three should look back on item 2. We've never softened NFA regulations. The only reason the AWBan did not get renewed was that it contained a sunset clause. Even then it was a closer thing than it should have been as the Dems and RINOS were scheming and they almost backdoored a renewal through the lawful commerce of arms thing. Remember, gun guys -- especially freedom oriented gun guys -- are a very small part of the population. We don't have anything near the sort of political clout to get the population to swallow rapid fire. Not in this day and age and not after Vegas. We don't have the clout, and this whole exercise is putting semi autos all at risk. ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 6:59:10 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
an unbiased reading of the opinion would show that miltary-grade arms would be protected. since Miller did not show up to SCOTUS, there was no defense to show that short-barreled shotguns were used in WW1 and that they had a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. so SCOTUS just took the gov's argument and upheld the NFA. when Heller was ruled some 60+ years later, you can actually see SCOTUS trying to block Miller so that we wouldn't be able to use it to legalize MGs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
as Miller clarified that the Second Amendment protected military-grade arms. Wait WUT?! I'm sure modern, sensible courts will see the true meaning of the 2A though, which is about sporting arms for fudds. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. when Heller was ruled some 60+ years later, you can actually see SCOTUS trying to block Miller so that we wouldn't be able to use it to legalize MGs. A well regulated hunting club being necessary to a free meal, the right to keep and bear hunting arms shall not be infringed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2019 11:02:41 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
an unbiased reading of the opinion would show that miltary-grade arms would be protected. since Miller did not show up to SCOTUS, there was no defense to show that short-barreled shotguns were used in WW1 and that they had a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. so SCOTUS just took the gov's argument and upheld the NFA. when Heller was ruled some 60+ years later, you can actually see SCOTUS trying to block Miller so that we wouldn't be able to use it to legalize MGs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 3:15:33 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't show up because he was a bank robber in witness protection. Too bad the whole laws hinge on this flawed case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
an unbiased reading of the opinion would show that miltary-grade arms would be protected. since Miller did not show up to SCOTUS, there was no defense to show that short-barreled shotguns were used in WW1 and that they had a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. so SCOTUS just took the gov's argument and upheld the NFA. when Heller was ruled some 60+ years later, you can actually see SCOTUS trying to block Miller so that we wouldn't be able to use it to legalize MGs. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/265/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 7:07:24 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So now it's just a waiting game to see if they take it up or not,right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 7:15:08 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryThis is how I see it. Too much crap happened in the Miller trial for me to believe it was just happenstance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 7:17:55 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @carguym14 it's a waiting game to see what they do with the request for a stay. This wasn't a cert petition. Just a request to stay the implementation of the rule as to the appellants (Guedes, Roden, FPF, Madison Society, Florida Carry and Codrea, Heuman, and Monroe) for us to either ask the Court of Appeals to rehear en banc or file a cert petition. 
At this point can all this legal maneuvering do anything more than protect the named appellants? What has to happen to have the whole thing (where the atf usurped the law with a ruling) thrown out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2019 10:18:53 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Laymen's terms please.
At this point can all this legal maneuvering do anything more than protect the named appellants? What has to happen to have the whole thing (where the atf usurped the law with a ruling) thrown out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: @carguym14 it's a waiting game to see what they do with the request for a stay. This wasn't a cert petition. Just a request to stay the implementation of the rule as to the appellants (Guedes, Roden, FPF, Madison Society, Florida Carry and Codrea, Heuman, and Monroe) for us to either ask the Court of Appeals to rehear en banc or file a cert petition.
At this point can all this legal maneuvering do anything more than protect the named appellants? What has to happen to have the whole thing (where the atf usurped the law with a ruling) thrown out? The next step is for our side to appeal - to a panel of judges or to SCOTUS. We’re asking SCOTUS to say that the ruling doesn’t apply until that process is completed. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File