[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS upholds the ATF’s rule regulating “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act (Page 3 of 6)
|
Quoted: Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: Quoted: Quoted: The majority also ruled: "Our analysis of the GCA thus does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns under the NFA." Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: The government represents that AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers, and this Court’s analysis of the GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA. Those two statements are not in conflict with each other. |
|
ATF regulating “ ghost gun manufacturing “ for general sales, I can understand….. regulating them for a citizen for making guns for “ personal / family member use / that are not for sale hell no. For the record, in general, I don’t believe in ANY laws restricting guns in any way, shape, or form. In a “ perfect world “, we wouldn’t have any…. And people who abuse guns would be dealt with severely. In reality though, it’s a miracle we still have the heavily regulated amendment we still have , criminals are not severely punished, personal responsibility is dead, and they only want to ban guns, not regulate criminals or push for personal responsibility/ punish dumb decisions, just allow bad behavior and use those examples of abusing weapons…to ban weapons.  So, I can see limited gun restrictions as a necessity. 4473 / barring criminals/ felons / gun safety classes are my limit though, full auto, belt feds, suppressors, grenades, explosives, antitank weapons, unrestricted ccw, etc should be the law of the land, only restrictions on military shit should be reasonable “ safe storage “ requirements m like a ammo bunker for x amount of c4 / lbs of c4 / grenades etc… so you don’t blow up a entire neighborhood. Personally, I believe theft of a firearm / shooting someone / accidentally shooting / killing thru negligence should be heavily punished, 5 year minimum for injuring / 10 year for accidental death via negligence/ death for armed robbery / murder, 10 year minimum for burglary/ gun theft.Anyone who believes schools high school / middle school and possibly even requiring a one time gun safety class for the public as a “ infringement “ isn’t grounded in reality in regards to how careless / stupid / dangerous/ and unsafe the average person is, and that same dangerous behavior results in deaths which are used to justify for gun bans. I want the USA to be like Switzerland/ the Swiss, every legal / sane citizen/ home owns military arms, and given training to ensure safe handling / use. |
|
Quoted: Yeah Cause a court full of ACB's wouldn't be better than a court of Kagens? Or Sotomayor's? You always think you're so edgy but that's not ever what it comes off like. It’s not being edgy. It’s calling a spade a spade. Trumps pics are the same. Might as well have 9 katanji Browns if the people lose anyway… same fucking result. |
|
Quoted: That's what they been doing, one company sells jigs only and they use a second LLC and website to sell frames. Quoted: Quoted: Bingo. Sell an 80 percent frame only, avoid scrutiny. And this case wasn’t even about that. This was about a Glock in a box you could do on the tailgate if your truck in 21 minutes Attached File |
|
Quoted: So now atf can claim making your own, homemade firearm, for personal use is illegal unless registered? What's next, you want to write a book / speech / text / social media post you have to pre register it with the FCC etc before you can write it? Because that's the same infringement in regards to violating our first amendment rights / second amendment rights. Especially when a dude with a fifth grade education can do it. The day I built an operational Glock in 30 mins was the day I knew the tyrants were coming for them. Big reason we have 76% Glock frames now, those are way harder to finish.  Polymer 80 Pistol Blanks - January 2023 Update |
|
Quoted: Those two statements are not in conflict with each other. Never said they were. Just showing that the majority states more than once in the opinion that; "GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA" when referring to AR-15 receivers as machine guns. |
|
Bullshit. Fuck you gorsuckit. All this does is make the laws ambiguous and open for stupid interpretations. A pipe could be a gun. If they don't like you. Look at that guy from Florida. A piece of metal with a drawing on it that the atf couldn't get to work was determined to be a machine gun. This is tyranny. |
|
Quoted: Never said they were. Just showing that the majority states more than once in the opinion that "AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers". Quoted: Quoted: Those two statements are not in conflict with each other. Never said they were. Just showing that the majority states more than once in the opinion that "AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers". My misunderstanding. Contextually it sounded like the opposite to me. 
|
|
Quoted: When I get time, I'll read through it. The comments in this thread have left me more confused. This requires a background check Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: In this There's always that to consider. Made up or not, the penalty if caught is the same. Can you fight off a bunch of federal agents coming to arrest you and then go back to your life as usual? Then maybe ignoring the made up law will work out for you. For the rest of us that live in the real world, we try not to give them any rope to hang us with. |
|
The Gun Control Act, Gorsuch writes, authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate "any weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." So, the Gun Control Act overrides the constitution? |
|
Quoted: No it's saying a complete Glock kit you make into a operational gun with a dremel, tin snips in under 30 mins is a firearm. Especially when a dude with a fifth grade education can do it. The day I built an operational Glock in 30 mins was the day I knew the tyrants were coming for them. Big reason we have 76% Glock frames now, those are way harder to finish.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcO1B6ZlLWoQuoted: Quoted: So now atf can claim making your own, homemade firearm, for personal use is illegal unless registered? What's next, you want to write a book / speech / text / social media post you have to pre register it with the FCC etc before you can write it? Because that's the same infringement in regards to violating our first amendment rights / second amendment rights. Especially when a dude with a fifth grade education can do it. The day I built an operational Glock in 30 mins was the day I knew the tyrants were coming for them. Big reason we have 76% Glock frames now, those are way harder to finish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcO1B6ZlLWoImho, doesn’t matter how “ easy “ it is, a 1% kit simply requiring assembling a dissessembled OEM glock type pistol from parts / clipping the frame / parts from mold frames like building a model car should be legal, being a citizen that’s not a felon and not for resale for profit being the limiting factor. Felon ? Hell no. 10 years in prison. Insane / mental illness… he’ll no, jail / mental hospital Assembling them for resale for profit being the? Hell no. Prison. Assembling them to give to known felons / prohibited people? Hell no. Prison. I would however limit “ felon / prohibited person “ to violent felons, where violence / physical violence against the innocent ….murder, attempted murder, robbery, rape, child molestation. And bring back three strike rules for those same violent felons. Third serious violent offense gets you life / death. Not the more and more “ generic felons “ the government seems obsessed with creating over bullshit. |
|
Quoted: Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: Quoted: Quoted: The majority also ruled: "Our analysis of the GCA thus does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns under the NFA." Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: The government represents that AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers, and this Court’s analysis of the GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA. This is a complete lie, the case is as stated a 'analysis of the GCA' and not the NFA. Nothing in this case is stopping the ATF from doing contortions with the NFA. The fact that they make this fallacious statement if fucking sad and they of all people should know this. |
|
Quoted: My misunderstanding. Contextually it sounded like the opposite to me. I edited my above response to your post to clarify: "Just showing that the majority states more than once in the opinion that; "GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA" when referring to AR-15 receivers as machine guns." The questions before the court were not specifically about AR-15 receivers being machine guns or viewed as such. The court (majority) states the government said AR-15 receivers are not machine gun receivers. And then the court (majority) goes on to state twice that the GCA doesn't suggest ATF has the authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns. |
|
|
Quoted:
Navi of Boomhandia My summary on the Vanderstok Ruling: Bad Things: - All-in-one kits need serial numbers, background checks - Polymer 80 frames (and things as easy to complete as them) need serial numbers, background checks - ATF retains their new, rule-endorsed ability to come up with arbitrary decisions about what is and isn't a firearm (this wasn't really challenged by plaintiffs) Good Things: - This has no bearing on your ability to make guns yourself. You don't have to put serial numbers on your stuff. "Ghost guns" are not banned. - AR15 80s are unaffected (at least for now) - Flats, blanks, tubes, forgings, etc are all unaffected - Court does not endorse the "8 hours in a machine shop" test, instead pointing to "1 hour, unskilled, with power tools" as being an example that's clearly "readily converted". |
|
One of these days I need to see how many 80% ar lowers I still have laying around unfinished ( and un marked ) and figure out what to do with them. I think its 3 or 4, finished many more than that but here is MD I had to get them ( finished ones ) marked. The state does not know about them they are just marked per the law. |
|
Quoted: This is a complete lie, the case is as stated a 'analysis of the GCA' and not the NFA. Nothing in this case is stopping the ATF from doing contortions with the NFA. The fact that they make this fallacious statement if fucking sad and they of all people should know this. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The majority also ruled: "Our analysis of the GCA thus does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns under the NFA." Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: The government represents that AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers, and this Court’s analysis of the GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA. This is a complete lie, the case is as stated a 'analysis of the GCA' and not the NFA. Nothing in this case is stopping the ATF from doing contortions with the NFA. The fact that they make this fallacious statement if fucking sad and they of all people should know this. The GCA is where the BATFE derives their regulatory authority, which is what's being addressed in those statements, not about how they interpret the NFA. The court is saying that the GCA doesn't grant the BATFE the authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns. Whether or not they attempt to reinterpret the NFA to do so is moot. But IANAL so perhaps I'm getting it wrong. |
|
|
Quoted: Every gun owner should read it Quoted: Quoted: The opinion if anyone cares to read it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf Every gun owner should read it cliff notes please |
|
Quoted: Navi of Boomhandia My summary on the Vanderstok Ruling: Bad Things: - All-in-one kits need serial numbers, background checks - Polymer 80 frames (and things as easy to complete as them) need serial numbers, background checks - ATF retains their new, rule-endorsed ability to come up with arbitrary decisions about what is and isn't a firearm (this wasn't really challenged by plaintiffs) Good Things: - This has no bearing on your ability to make guns yourself. You don't have to put serial numbers on your stuff. "Ghost guns" are not banned. - AR15 80s are unaffected (at least for now) - Flats, blanks, tubes, forgings, etc are all unaffected - Court does not endorse the "8 hours in a machine shop" test, instead pointing to "1 hour, unskilled, with power tools" as being an example that's clearly "readily converted". P80 really was hurt by all the lawsuits. |
|
Quoted:
That tweet is referencing this one:
Michael Cargill Breaking News! The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, upheld Biden’s Ghost Gun regulation. When I sat in the US Supreme Court during the Cargill Bump Stock case, I said that SCOTUS does not have the appetite to remove machine guns, suppressors, or SBRs from the NFA list, nor will they overturn Ghost guns. Stop asking questions you don't want the answer to. Congress is our only hope. |
|
Quoted: The GCA is where the BATFE derives their regulatory authority, which is what's being addressed in those statements, not about how they interpret the NFA. The court is saying that the GCA doesn't grant the BATFE the authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns. Whether or not they attempt to reinterpret the NFA to do so is moot. But IANAL so perhaps I'm getting it wrong. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The majority also ruled: "Our analysis of the GCA thus does not begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns under the NFA." Yep, on page 2 of the opinion they state this: The government represents that AR–15 receivers do not qualify as machinegun receivers, and this Court’s analysis of the GCA does not suggest ATF has authority to regulate them as such under the NFA. This is a complete lie, the case is as stated a 'analysis of the GCA' and not the NFA. Nothing in this case is stopping the ATF from doing contortions with the NFA. The fact that they make this fallacious statement if fucking sad and they of all people should know this. The GCA is where the BATFE derives their regulatory authority, which is what's being addressed in those statements, not about how they interpret the NFA. The court is saying that the GCA doesn't grant the BATFE the authority to regulate AR-15 receivers as machine guns. Whether or not they attempt to reinterpret the NFA to do so is moot. But IANAL so perhaps I'm getting it wrong. A 80% AR-15 receiver isn't a AR-15 receiver, its a M-16 receiver. Hell, its historical for AR-15's to be full auto in the first place. There is no realistic difference between a semi-auto and a full auto AR-15/M-16. |
|
So getting a full "80%" build kit with all parts needed (minus tools) that can be completed in 21 minutes is now a firearm. A rectangular solid piece of plastic (aka "0%") is not a firearm. So where is the line now? A kit that comes with 80% (instead of 100%) of the parts needed that can be completed in 21 minutes? How about a kit that comes with all parts, but takes 40 minutes to complete it? Previously, that line was at "80%" and had nothing to do with time, skill, expertise, or parts. Where is the line now? Or was that deliberately left unanswered by the ruling? If so, I wonder if the ATF will issue an opinion... or perhaps it takes a company to submit a new design/model to the ATF to force them to issue an opinion. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf That second blurb there…define “explosive”…. Versus say smokeless propellant. Sssssoooo….if a person could make something like a man portable magnetic rail gun that accelerates a projectile to say 3,000fps …. That’s NOT in the ATF’s purview??? Or a regular air riifle/pellet gun/BB gun is also outside of the ATF purview??? |
|
Quoted: The complete poly 80 kits that included everything except ammo were probably a bad idea in hindsight Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: is it just kits with ALL parts included that can be regulated or does it include ALL kits such as 80% aluminum AR receivers that require milling and additional components? No answer on that, just that some kits will be outside the GCA. We have to be intellectually honest here thou, selling it with every part needed was probably a bad idea. Same goes for how easy it was to do a poly 80, should have made it harder some how to try to fly under the radar. Or just say screw it, make millions until your shut down. The complete poly 80 kits that included everything except ammo were probably a bad idea in hindsight Yes, I cringed a bit when I saw those. |
|
One can recognize that P80 hastened this situation by selling a Glock in a box that can be completed in less than half an hour…while also acknowledging that the ATFags and the PedoJoe administration would’ve come for our 90s anyway, and that all gun laws are infringements. I think I’m going to try to stipple my MUP1 build with the following repeating texture. ..-. ... -.-. ..-. .--- -... |
|
Quoted: This one hurts. I really expected better from Kavanaugh. If the Dems take back control of the Capital and appoint a new ATF head.... you better believe they are going to come after AR15s. The argument will be they are "readily convertible" to machine guns. Doesn't matter if you own a Lightning Link or not. Because Lightning Links exist, your AR15 has the potential to be a machinegun which now means it legally is a machine gun. Based on this opinion if you own a 3D Printer you technically already own a Glock clone, because someone with very little machining knowledge could potentially hit "start" and have the machine spit one out. PreCrime is now the policy of the USA. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/127578/intro-import_jpg-3500499.JPG Well….yeah! What do you think the whole point of having the IRS / FinCen track everybody’s purchases at Bass Pro, Cabelas, and the Biblestore? |
|
I'm sorry, as I read it, it doesn't apply to 80% or even P80 frames. It was P80 frames AND complete parts kits. Even the '76% frames can't be done in the '20 minutes' and don't fall under this. Nor any receiver that involves milling, welding, heat testing, etc. And remember... There's court discussion that says the lower isn't even the legal receiver. |
