This is really big. It really is something to celebrate.
I’m not sure I agree with 90 years claim though, though. Heller was only 18 years ago, and I think of it as a more significant decision. What win did we have about 1936?
My problem is that this only applies to:
1. Members of the GOA
2. Customers of Silencer Shop
3. Customers of Palmetto State Armory
If it had been appealed, we might have seen it apply to everyone. As it is, it is very murky if you are not buying from Silencer Shop or PSA. And, what happens when we inevitably have an anti-gun administration some time in the future?
Loading...
It was my understanding that it covers members of the NRA, SAF, and FPC as well as the GOA. The 2 local suppressor dealer I’m familiar with are holding off until the get most guidance from their suppliers and/or the Feds. Each illegal transfer is 10 years at 80%, so they are understandably skittish about going out on a limb.
Loading...
It also covers POTENTIAL customers for those companies….meaning everyone who is not a prohibited possesor.
Still have to register them even if you don’t have to pay a $200 fee for the privilege, or did something change to remove that also?
Loading...
No registrations. Build your own suppressor. Cut your shotgun barrel down to 16 inches. Cut your life barrel down to 14 inches. All legal under federal law with this ruling. It does not affect state laws.
It only applies to certain people and organizations. But join GOA or CCRKBA, and you are covered
Loading...
or if I, FPC and GOA member not in Texas, take my Blackout pistol upper off the pistol . . . ?
Loading...
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that as long as the state you are in does not have a problem with it then you would be okay.
Loading...
Joe, IF you are a “potential customer” of any of those companies you ought to be covered as well.
Loading...
Agreed, but probably just for the products you purchase from them. It seems unlikely you could be a potential customer of a company then saw off a shotgun you did not buy from them and expect to be covered by the ruling.
Loading...
So a law can be unconstitutional but only for certain people.
Still not real clear on how that works. You have the right to free speech as long as you pay for membership in the “Free Speech of America” club.
Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like a poll tax to me.
And now that the DOJ has decided not to appeal, what is the incentive for GOA et. al. to sue to broaden the ruling to cover everyone? We’re going to have to have lawsuits in every jurisdiction and joined by every possible constituency to get this ruled unconstitutional for everyone and not just for certain people?
I’m just not getting how this makes any kind of sense…but, then again, I’m pretty sure lawyers work very hard to keep the laws and application of them from making any sense so we’ll have to hire them when we run afoul of it.
Loading...
maybe the difference between an injunction and vacatur.
Loading...
A year or so ago, SCOTUS very explicitly said lower courts can only provide relief to the parties before the court. Present and future customers/members of the plaintiffs can therefore be provided relief by this court, but not the general public.
Expect this ruling to be leveraged by the same and other organizations in other districts (a federal court in Missouri is well into a nearly identical case) and the indications are it will also go our way. The Missouri case may even be another summary judgement.
A previous ruling is a strong influence on new cases. Multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions will be an even stronger influence. If/when a court rules against us SCOTUS will be likely to accept it to get rid of the conflict.
Loading...
The 1936 win was stopping all handguns from being in the NFA.
Loading...
It was a big win in 2004 when the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. It passed in 1994 after decades of rising crime, which ironically had peaked in 1991 but the trend wasn’t readily apparent yet, so the gun grabbers claimed that the ban caused the subsequent decline, which of course was false.
Loading...
True. But that wasn’t over 90 years ago.
Loading...
Sadly, while SBR and sawed off shotguns will be fine, it’s more complex with suppressors here in WA state, because state law is slightly different for them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8xf8XGtQo8
If they are no longer registered via NFA, then you can’t comply with RCW 9.41.250 that says “unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law.” And I doubt the WA Supreme Court will go with the obvious and beneficial-to-gun-owners reinterpretation.
One step closer to walking into the local True Value and grabbing a blisterpacked suppressor assortment off the shelf.
Pingback: HAHAHAHAHA NFA Win – Western Rifle Shooters Association
My problem is that this only applies to:
1. Members of the GOA
2. Customers of Silencer Shop
3. Customers of Palmetto State Armory
If it had been appealed, we might have seen it apply to everyone. As it is, it is very murky if you are not buying from Silencer Shop or PSA. And, what happens when we inevitably have an anti-gun administration some time in the future?
It was my understanding that it covers members of the NRA, SAF, and FPC as well as the GOA. The 2 local suppressor dealer I’m familiar with are holding off until the get most guidance from their suppliers and/or the Feds. Each illegal transfer is 10 years at 80%, so they are understandably skittish about going out on a limb.
It also covers POTENTIAL customers for those companies….meaning everyone who is not a prohibited possesor.
First Non-NFA sale. https://xcancel.com/GunOwners/status/2087775714091130926?s=20
Still have to register them even if you don’t have to pay a $200 fee for the privilege, or did something change to remove that also?
No registrations. Build your own suppressor. Cut your shotgun barrel down to 16 inches. Cut your life barrel down to 14 inches. All legal under federal law with this ruling. It does not affect state laws.
It only applies to certain people and organizations. But join GOA or CCRKBA, and you are covered
or if I, FPC and GOA member not in Texas, take my Blackout pistol upper off the pistol . . . ?
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that as long as the state you are in does not have a problem with it then you would be okay.
Joe, IF you are a “potential customer” of any of those companies you ought to be covered as well.
Agreed, but probably just for the products you purchase from them. It seems unlikely you could be a potential customer of a company then saw off a shotgun you did not buy from them and expect to be covered by the ruling.
So a law can be unconstitutional but only for certain people.
Still not real clear on how that works. You have the right to free speech as long as you pay for membership in the “Free Speech of America” club.
Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like a poll tax to me.
And now that the DOJ has decided not to appeal, what is the incentive for GOA et. al. to sue to broaden the ruling to cover everyone? We’re going to have to have lawsuits in every jurisdiction and joined by every possible constituency to get this ruled unconstitutional for everyone and not just for certain people?
I’m just not getting how this makes any kind of sense…but, then again, I’m pretty sure lawyers work very hard to keep the laws and application of them from making any sense so we’ll have to hire them when we run afoul of it.
maybe the difference between an injunction and vacatur.
A year or so ago, SCOTUS very explicitly said lower courts can only provide relief to the parties before the court. Present and future customers/members of the plaintiffs can therefore be provided relief by this court, but not the general public.
Expect this ruling to be leveraged by the same and other organizations in other districts (a federal court in Missouri is well into a nearly identical case) and the indications are it will also go our way. The Missouri case may even be another summary judgement.
A previous ruling is a strong influence on new cases. Multiple rulings in multiple jurisdictions will be an even stronger influence. If/when a court rules against us SCOTUS will be likely to accept it to get rid of the conflict.
The 1936 win was stopping all handguns from being in the NFA.
It was a big win in 2004 when the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. It passed in 1994 after decades of rising crime, which ironically had peaked in 1991 but the trend wasn’t readily apparent yet, so the gun grabbers claimed that the ban caused the subsequent decline, which of course was false.
True. But that wasn’t over 90 years ago.
Sadly, while SBR and sawed off shotguns will be fine, it’s more complex with suppressors here in WA state, because state law is slightly different for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8xf8XGtQo8
If they are no longer registered via NFA, then you can’t comply with RCW 9.41.250 that says “unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law.” And I doubt the WA Supreme Court will go with the obvious and beneficial-to-gun-owners reinterpretation.