As of now, of the nine cases argued in the Supreme Court’s October calendar, five have been decided. Still pending is Garland v. VanDerStok, which was argued on October 8. Before rendering a decision, the Court should give the Trump Administration an opportunity to express its views of the case with the Court. It’s a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) redefining and expanding the definitions of “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver” that criminalizes conduct not made unlawful by Congress, with Second Amendment implications.
The new Administration is sure to hold views adverse to those presented by the Biden Administration. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ arguments in the case are similar to those made by DOJ in defense of the previous, longstanding regulatory definition of “firearm” before the Biden Administration upended that definition in the Rule. …
If the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing an opinion in VanDerStok, it should delay to give Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris an opportunity to review the matter and advise the Court of the new Administration’s position. That office must be overwhelmed by the deluge of cases in which the district courts are enjoining actions of the President, such as the DOGE efforts to weed out fraud and abuse from the executive branch and the effort to exclude birth-right citizenship to unlawful aliens and temporary visitors.
The SG’s Office should act quickly to ensure that the Court is advised of the Administration’s views on VanDerStock. If it doesn’t make this a top priority, it risks a decision that is uninformed by the Executive Branch’s position on a constitutional right exercised by millions of Americans.
— Stephen Halbrook in Second Amendment Roundup: Supreme Court Should Hold its Decision in VanDerStok
It’s as if the Enron ruling was never overturned…
Listening to other commentary regarding this case, while it wasn’t argued very positively, this isn’t strictly a 2A case, but rather an Administrative Ruling Change with Criminal Consequences.
Furthermore, the 4 Justices who have yet to write an opinion for cases heard in October lean Conservative. That is to say, it doesn’t guarantee a 2A-positive ruling, however, the Court has been very critical of the Administrative State in recent years. That is, if the ruling were to be “positive” for 2A and Freedom, then does the SG’s Office effectively “moot” the case, rendering the decision useless?
“Listening to other commentary regarding this case, while it wasn’t argued very positively, this isn’t strictly a 2A case, but rather an Administrative Ruling Change with Criminal Consequences.”
Exactly, and on that point, I Think we’ll be fine.
What concerns me is whether or not they deal with the issue of building guns at home, for personal use, outside of the direct view of the government. That will be CRITICAL if we ever get an actual fascist in power who wants a grab at the metaphorical ‘Brass Ring’ and ban all guns.
The issue on the constitutionality of gun registration will have to be dealt with by this court, hopefully soon. That alone will deal with a *massive* number of gun laws.
“Furthermore, the 4 Justices who have yet to write an opinion for cases heard in October lean Conservative. That is to say, it doesn’t guarantee a 2A-positive ruling, however, the Court has been very critical of the Administrative State in recent years.”
That leaves me hopeful, as well. I’d like to know, will the court take the opportunity of this ruling and expand upon it?
“That is, if the ruling were to be “positive” for 2A and Freedom, then does the SG’s Office effectively “moot” the case, rendering the decision useless?”
We get to wait and see until late June, at the latest to find out. I hope the ruling is a blockbuster that they release it as they walk out and lock the doors until the fall session, giving the Leftist Scum ™ something to cope and seethe about all the long, hot summer long…
i feel like i caught a snippet of conversation in a hallway. the quoted stuff above is basically nonsense / incoherent unless you are already closely tracking this case somewhere else: “Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ arguments in the case are similar to those made by DOJ in defense of the previous, longstanding regulatory definition of “firearm” before the Biden Administration upended that definition in the Rule.” huh?!? i’m too lazy to go try to look up what this case is about and why it matters.
“i’m too lazy to go try to look up what this case is about and why it matters.”
It’s *very* important, it deals (on the surface, anyways) with a regulatory agency the BATF, being able to call a pile of parts a gun, or not a gun. That leads directly to whether or not it requires a serial number (that the government can track) once it becomes finished enough to fire live ammunition…
thank you