The United States Supreme Court begins its new term today and plans to hear a wide ranging number of cases dealing with eveything from guns to online porn. While no doubt a number of you are definitely into online porn, it is the gun cases TTAG will focus on today.
Among the first issues to be heard is a challenge to the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost guns” — firearms that can be assembled from parts sold online and are often untraceable due to the absence of serial numbers. On October 8, the court will hear Garland v. VanDerStok, a case that focuses on whether partially assembled firearms sold in kits should be treated as guns under federal law.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) implemented a regulation in April 2022 requiring ghost guns to be registered, with serial numbers, and buyers to undergo background checks. However, the rule was successfully challenged by gun dealers in lower courts, and now the federal government is appealing to the Supreme Court, according to Newsweek.
This case isn’t about the Second Amendment directly. Instead, the question centers on whether the executive branch has the authority to redefine the legal meaning of a firearm under existing federal law. Critics of the regulation argue that the administration is overstepping its bounds by enforcing restrictions that should be determined by Congress, not regulatory agencies. This is a parallel to the court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the power of executive agencies to expand laws through administrative regulations, according to a USA Today article.
Legal experts are watching closely. Syracuse University law professor Greg Germain remarked to Newsweek that the case could serve as a test of the Supreme Court’s adherence to constitutional principles. The court’s previous rulings, such as Garland v. Cargill, where they blocked a regulation banning bump stocks, have demonstrated the justices’ strong defense of gun rights.
In addition to the ghost gun case and as noted on TTAG late Friday, the court will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by the Mexican government against Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. Mexico is seeking billions in damages, alleging that the gun manufacturer has been complicit in fueling violence by enabling the sale of firearms to drug cartels. Mexico claims that Smith & Wesson’s reckless marketing practices and lack of safeguards have made it easier for criminals to acquire their weapons. Smith & Wesson argues that they are shielded from liability under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gunmakers from lawsuits when their products are legally sold but later misused.
The outcome of these cases will likely set important precedents for gun regulation and liability in the U.S., and gun owners and Second Amendment defenders will be paying close attention to how the Supreme Court handles these challenges. Decisions on both cases are expected by July of next year.
After Trump is sworn in he can load the court with another dozen or so justices.
The fascist left should not complain. It was their idea.
As a man driven by spite, i agree, give em a taste of their own medicine
Filling the federal vacancies with constitutional originalist judges at every opportunity would be just spiteful enough while not giving casus belli to be used against us.
“After Trump is sworn in he can load the court with another dozen or so justices“
The number of Supreme Court justices is set by Congress, not the president.
“As a man driven by spite“
And this is why the cult will fail, they are driven by emotion, rather than rational thought.
“constitutional originalist”
As originally written, the constitution is a bigoted document. Americans of today will not return to the original constitution, for they have had a taste of true ‘Freedom and Justice for All’.
Aww how cute a commie trying to project cult behavior on their opponents. Not very original but quaintly familiar.
“Aww how cute“
But no actual response to the content of my comment.
“a commie”
Yeah, now we find out the real Commie is Donald Trump, how many Americans died due to a lack of Covid testing equipment because Donald Trump was secretly providing them to his butt buddy Vladimir Putin?
The constitution defines a traitor as someone who gives ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy, I’m sure Donald Trump appreciates your treasonous support.
“Trump secretly gave Putin Covid test machines, Bob Woodward book says
‘Please don’t tell anybody,’ Russian president advised, according to new book from veteran Watergate reporter
US politics live – follow updates
Martin Pengelly in Washington
Tue 8 Oct 2024 12.30 EDT
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
Donald Trump secretly sent Covid-19 testing machines to Vladimir Putin in the early stages of the pandemic when such resources were in short supply, the veteran reporter Bob Woodward reveals in an eagerly awaited new book.
Trump took ‘British naval secrets’ to Mar-a-Lago, says Christopher Steele
According to Woodward, Trump “secretly sent Putin a bunch of Abbott Point of Care Covid test machines for his personal use”.“
When you post something worthwhile I will respond in kind. Your projection of lefty group think issues on your ideological opponents does not come close to such a threshold. And commie is as commie does wannabe glowie.
I read the NPR version of the same issues SCOTUS is taking this session, needless to say their take was somewhat slanted and deliberately omitted relevant facts. It is interesting to see what the ememies of freedom are saying and is a clear reminder of what could happen if we ignore the danger the political left represents to this country.
Speaking of online porn, i think it will aid in the fall of the USA if something isnt done about it. I wonder how many of our 15 to 25 yr old males Re addicted to it in this country? Doesn’t bode well for the family in the future. Much less how it affects Gods protection of this country.
Probably at least 85% of them.
Yeah, but what is your solution to it?
Thats a good question and i wish i knew the answer. It couldn’t be viewed on cable tv though, so why is it ok on the internet. I dunno, It at least shouldnt be free maybe?
And i agree with 85% Publius
Tax it regulate it and if it’s still moving apply fees for service. But that would involve a government that didn’t want weak men.
Cut the chase…The USSC had more than enough time to put an end to Gun Control the one remaining History Confirmed agenda that walks hand in hand with Slavery, Genocide, etc.
Shush, learn about the topic, apply critical thought, then try again.
“Mexico is seeking billions in damages…”
And of course the irony of ironies is that… should they happen to win and collect those billions, the vast majority of that money will likely end up in the hands of the very same cartels that Mexico is “complaining” about being armed by the US companies.
Another case to follow may be United States v. King. Reuben King is an Amish farmer in PA who was convicted of selling firearms without an FFL. He was convicted, now/soon on appeal in the 3rd Circuit.
King was engaged in the business, given a warning, yet still continued in his commercial endeavor:
“Between October 24, 2019 and March 16, 2020, King, a member of the Amish faith, sold five firearms to an undercover police officer on three separate occasions. The transactions took place in King’s barn, where the undercover officer saw and filmed numerous firearms, which were arrayed on tables in the barn and marked with price tags.
King did not have a license to sell firearms commercially. As a result, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) served King with a cease-and-desist letter, warning him that his actions could be defined as dealing in firearms and that he should cease such activity until obtaining a license as required by federal law. King did not obtain a license, nor did he attempt to obtain a license, but he did continue to sell firearms. After receiving the letter, King sold firearms to undercover officers during three separate transactions.
ATF agents later executed a search warrant at King’s barn and recovered evidence of an ongoing business of selling guns, including the following: approximately 615 longarm firearms; approximately 10,000 rounds of ammunition; records and receipts for advertisements of guns placed in a local newspaper; and plastic bowls containing pre-marked price tags.“
So what’s the problem?
As a society, we have determined it’s best if commercial businesses operate within a certain set of standards, depending upon the commodity and/or services they provide in the public space.
When it comes to firearms, our society, through Congress, has established a set of standards for dealers who sell firearms to the public.
Congress requires that individuals and/or corporations that engage in the commercial business of firearm sales, entities known as ‘dealers’, are required to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) before they engage in the commercial activity of selling firearms in the public space.
This individual engaged in the commercial business of firearm sales without first obtaining an FFL.
The federal authorities contacted this individual, made him aware of the requirements, and made it clear that he should cease and desist his activities until he obtained the proper licensure.
The individual ignored these instructions, and continued in his unlawful activity of commercial firearm sales without proper licensure.
Thus, he was indicted for conducting commercial sales of firearms without obtaining the proper licenses.
I would imagine he might be in violation of state laws regulating the conduct of commercial businesses as well.
I’m surprised you’re unfamiliar with this facet of our jurisprudence system, this system has been in place for decades.
Lol no, back to selling at hardware stores as they should be and society is often too retarded to be allowed to dictate rules let alone rights.
So? Just because the system has been in place for a long time doesn’t mean that it’s *just*, or ever was.
Are they requiring Mexico to post a sizeable large bond to cover the defendant’s expenses when Mexico loses this non-starter of a case ?
At this point, Mexico is winning, so there is no judgment against it on which a bond could be predicated. Not that it would matter; Mexico would just declare that any such judgment for attorneys fees and costs was unconstitutional and therefore uncollectable through Mexican courts.
If Mexico doesn’t follow rules like a civilized nation, they can go scratch.
Comments are closed.