The USSC issued a stay on the "ghost gun" injunction out of Texas. It is essentially the law of the land now. Thanks Roberts and Barrett
- Thread starter wvfarrier
- Start date
This is not youtube it's ok to write "We're Fucked!!!!"
Are you really surprised an anti-gun president nominated an anti-gun justice?
Is Scrotus not going to hear the case?
I thought a stay was only to let the lower court ruling stand until heard?
I thought a stay was only to let the lower court ruling stand until heard?
You are correct. The stay is just to keep things as they are while the case proceeds. Judge O'Connor entered an injunction against application of the law while the case proceeds to a final judgment on the merits. The Supreme Court is just saying, no, the regulation will stay in effect while the case proceeds.
This is the second time the Supreme Court has done this - they reversed Judge O'Connor's August order doing the same thing, so Judge O'Connor probably should have known that his September order was unlikely to hold up. Indeed, it is sort of flouting the authority of the Supreme Court. So the Court not only reversed the injunction, but voided the order.
Supreme Court tells Fifth Circuit to stop its defiance in ghost gun case
I really wish we had real education because then people would not be taken in but over the top headlines, be able to control their emotions, and think about the entirety of the case.
This particular 'ruling' is about 1% guns and 99% procedure.
It is a ruling on an injunction. Not a ruling on a case. It has very little bearing out the outcome or potential outcomes of the case. Just because an injunction was not upheld does not mean the decision was "anti-gun" any more than it was "pro-gun". It was more about the details and procedures of an individual judge. Our justice system works very, very, very slow.
This is not an endorsement, it is an observation.
Settle down.
You may commence name calling now. I am a leftist-statist-communist-ss-whore.
I also pay fucking attention.
This particular 'ruling' is about 1% guns and 99% procedure.
It is a ruling on an injunction. Not a ruling on a case. It has very little bearing out the outcome or potential outcomes of the case. Just because an injunction was not upheld does not mean the decision was "anti-gun" any more than it was "pro-gun". It was more about the details and procedures of an individual judge. Our justice system works very, very, very slow.
This is not an endorsement, it is an observation.
Settle down.
You may commence name calling now. I am a leftist-statist-communist-ss-whore.
I also pay fucking attention.
Doc,
Someone is paying attention… Tube of You and the Book of Faces tend to freak out the ones who only receive their news and information from those sources only.
Carry on.
Drink one.
The Supreme Court’s very brief, very revealing new decision about guns, explained
Why the Supreme Court just smacked down one of the judiciary’s worst GOP partisans.
www.vox.com 
Problem being the Supreme Court has very little power (all things considered) to reign in the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Sure you can sue but
(1) You have to have standing (be harmed)
(2) Make it a Federal Case involving federal interpretation of the law
(3 )Appeal to Federal Appeals Court
(4) Be granted Review to Appeals Court
(5) Hope the Supreme Court agrees to hear your case
(6) Actually win your case.
In fact the infamous "overturning Roe v Wade" really should have been titled "SUPREME COURT SAYS 'YOU GUYS STOP KICKING THE CAN OVER TO US FOR LEGISLATIVE ISSUES;"
This case DOES involve FJB - the regulation was a top priority of the Biden administration when elected. They announced two priorities for the ATF. One was pistol braces, and this "ghost gun" issue was the other. The ATF (part of the Biden Administration) promptly leapt into action to write new rules, just as it did when Trump had them do the same thing for bump stocks.
So to put it plainly, the Supreme Court took FJB's side for now on this issue.
They also accepted an appeal in the Rahimi case involving the Second Amendment's application to persons under a domestic violence restraining order. The Biden administration skipped the en banc hearing and asked the Supreme Court to take it on an expedited basis, and the Supreme Court did as they asked. The decision will be out next term.
No, they didn't (Take Brandon's side).
They ruled on an injunction, not the case. Just because you don't understand how the process works doesn't mean you get to dictate the truth.
This is why we have bad laws and problems. People like you are unable to think and comprehend the reality of what is going on and resort to knee-jerk hysteria.
Let the adults handle it while you yell at a cloud, angrily.
LOL, I think my post went right over your head. "For now," yes they did. As for knowing how the process works, I bet only one of us is a member of the Supreme Court bar, and I bet it isn't you. The new ATF rule can continue to be enforced against these two companies during the pendency of this case, and that is 100% the result of the Supreme Court's action. It is also the desired result of the Biden administration, which is the party that asked the Supreme Court for this ruling with an application for stay.
This is 100% a win for the Biden administration, and 100% a loss for the plaintiffs, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed, who cannot do business for now as a result of this win at the Supreme Court by the Biden administration.
You are correct only in that this is not the final ruling in the case. It will go back to the Fifth Circuit, which will send it back to the District Court, where Judge O'Connor will take up the case again. Whatever outcome there is from there will work its way back up to the Fifth Circuit, and maybe to the Supreme Court again. (MAYBE, the Vanderstock case, the one in which the Supreme Court vacated Judge O'Connor's nationwide injunction back in August, went back to the Fifth Circuit, which held oral arguments on September 7 and is now awaiting an opinion from the Fifth Circuit).
So the Biden administration files an application for stay, the Supreme Court takes it and grants it, but you think that is not taking the Biden administration's side. This was the only issue before the Court, and the Court ruled on that issue in favor of what the Biden administration was requesting. Yes, the Court took the Biden administration's side. That is not "knee jerk hysteria" but a simple observation of what happened.
They had to take one side or the other.
It wasn't Defense Distributed and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group's side.
This is 100% a win for the Biden administration, and 100% a loss for the plaintiffs, Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed, who cannot do business for now as a result of this win at the Supreme Court by the Biden administration.
You are correct only in that this is not the final ruling in the case. It will go back to the Fifth Circuit, which will send it back to the District Court, where Judge O'Connor will take up the case again. Whatever outcome there is from there will work its way back up to the Fifth Circuit, and maybe to the Supreme Court again. (MAYBE, the Vanderstock case, the one in which the Supreme Court vacated Judge O'Connor's nationwide injunction back in August, went back to the Fifth Circuit, which held oral arguments on September 7 and is now awaiting an opinion from the Fifth Circuit).
So the Biden administration files an application for stay, the Supreme Court takes it and grants it, but you think that is not taking the Biden administration's side. This was the only issue before the Court, and the Court ruled on that issue in favor of what the Biden administration was requesting. Yes, the Court took the Biden administration's side. That is not "knee jerk hysteria" but a simple observation of what happened.
They had to take one side or the other.
It wasn't Defense Distributed and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group's side.
Last edited:
^^ what he said ^^
we already knew how 4 supreme court justices were going to vote. they have D's and that piece of shit roberts.....
sad to see Amy go against the constitution on this.
Fed agencies shouldn't be allowed to make Laws.. I mean"Rules"
- The rule was issued by the ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
- The rule expanded the definition of a firearm under a 1968 federal law called Gun Control Act to include parts and kits that may be readily turned into a gun
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ISIJ2HTJDBOJRHE6PHL6MCSHK4.jpg)
US Supreme Court blocks judge's order allowing 'ghost gun' sales
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday barred two Texas-based manufacturers from selling products that can be quickly converted at home into firearms called "ghost guns," granting a request by President Joe Biden's administration to once again block a federal judge's order that had sided with companies.
www.reuters.com Supreme Court Again Lets Biden’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’ Stand
It appears.. most newspapers also see this as a WIN FOR JOE BIDEN
Well, it is a win, at least temporarily. I don't think it is hysteria to point that out.
The bigger question is whether it will become a permanent win down the road.
One of the issues you must prove to get an injunction is a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge O'Connor found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. Now that the Supreme Court has vacated his opinion, however, that finding no longer stands. The Supreme Court did not give us any reasoning, and there are no dissents, so we will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Meanwhile, the ATF can enforce its rule against Defense Distributed and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, which means they will be in violation of federal law if they sell their kits without serial numbers and otherwise treating them as a commercial firearm sale.
The bigger question is whether it will become a permanent win down the road.
One of the issues you must prove to get an injunction is a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge O'Connor found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. Now that the Supreme Court has vacated his opinion, however, that finding no longer stands. The Supreme Court did not give us any reasoning, and there are no dissents, so we will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Meanwhile, the ATF can enforce its rule against Defense Distributed and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, which means they will be in violation of federal law if they sell their kits without serial numbers and otherwise treating them as a commercial firearm sale.
Last edited:
Garland v. Blackhawk Manufacturing Group - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
www.scotusblog.com Oct 16 2023
Application (23A302) to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The September 14, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, is vacated.
Let me explain it very slowly and in small words for you.^^ what he said ^^
we already knew how 4 supreme court justices were going to vote. they have D's and that piece of shit roberts.....
sad to see Amy go against the constitution on this.
Fed agencies shouldn't be allowed to make Laws.. I mean"Rules"
Wait till the AFT further expands on their "RULES"
- The rule was issued by the ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
- The rule expanded the definition of a firearm under a 1968 federal law called Gun Control Act to include parts and kits that may be readily turned into a gun
US Supreme Court blocks judge's order allowing 'ghost gun' sales
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday barred two Texas-based manufacturers from selling products that can be quickly converted at home into firearms called "ghost guns," granting a request by President Joe Biden's administration to once again block a federal judge's order that had sided with companies.
Supreme Court Again Lets Biden’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’ Stand
It appears.. most newspapers also see this as a WIN FOR JOE BIDEN
(1)
The
ruling
was
on
a
judge's
order
not
the
case
(2) Do you regularly take the NYT as truth? Because I stopped believing any of their news some 40 years ago. Remember when they last endorsed a republican for president? My Grandfather was still a teenager, my father hadn't been born and WW2 was still on.
(3) Most News papers see this as a win? Most Newspapers would fuck up the concept of water being wet, let along complex court proceedings. So who gives a shit what newspapers think. Can you think or must it be spoon fed for you by some asshat with a mic or a website
The analogy I can think of here is a football one.
In the middle of the first quarter, the QB (Biden) hands off to the RB(ATF). The running back is tackled for a loss be the DE (CIrcuit Court). A penalty is called on the DE.
Who won the game?
(You, @Malum Prohibitum and the rest of the fucktard pit dwellers, along with Chris Collinsworth: "OMG THIS GAME IS SO OVER FOR THE DEFENSE")
CALM
YOUR
FUCKING
TITS
MORON.
You know how they are going to vote?
Like in Heller, McDonald, Bruen? Which "Conservatives" defected in those votes? (Hint the number starts with "Z" and ends with "ERO YOU ASSTWIT"
Shut your fucking whore mouth. You know dick.
Nowhere in my posting above is this argument that the "game is so over for the defense" made. You simply invented this false claim and then wrote a post opposing a claim I did not make, instead of addressing what I wrote.
You are intentionally deceptive at this point. It can't possibly be innocent.
strawman
ad hominem
Just two fallacies that stand out in one post.
I just re-read every post in the thread. There are not that many of them. Nowhere is anybody claiming that the entire case is over. Each person seemed to realize on some level that the Supreme Court vacated the injunction.
Then you come along multiple times in the thread all huffy typing about how everybody but you are fucktards and idiots and that this was just a ruling by the Supreme Court on the District Court's injunction, but nobody understands this but you.
Everybody understood this, including you, but you do not seem to understand what anybody else wrote.
Go back and re-read the thread. This is not a long thread.
You are literally arguing in frustration against something nobody claimed.
Then you come along multiple times in the thread all huffy typing about how everybody but you are fucktards and idiots and that this was just a ruling by the Supreme Court on the District Court's injunction, but nobody understands this but you.
Everybody understood this, including you, but you do not seem to understand what anybody else wrote.
Go back and re-read the thread. This is not a long thread.
You are literally arguing in frustration against something nobody claimed.
You want to be fancy?
Your claim, that my claim (follow along here) of "game over for the defense" is a strawman.
And yet lets look at the Subject of my sentence "You, @Malum Prohibitum and the rest of the fucktard pit dwellers," YOU are not the entire subject. Look at the thread title. Look at the first few posts. Look at the post I was directly replying to. Do you understand English sentence structure?
Intentionally deceptive? Nope, I'm pretty clear. I think you are dumb, reactionary, and mildly retarded (sorry "intellectually disabled"--I grew up in a different era).
Strawman? By directly quoting and refuting people. Liar, Liar, Straw Pants on fire.
Ad hominem? You feel persoanlly attacked? aww too bad. Its the bear pit buttercup, not an intellectual debate. I don't give a shit anymore. I'm done with stupid fucks who would rather shoot themselves in the foot than solve a problem.
And apparently "We're Fucked" as a thread title isn't a suffcient claim that people are overreacting. Along with 3 of the first 4 posts,, with the fourth saying "Its okay to swear"
So we can add another ad hominem: You have the reading comprehension of a half eaten regurgitated pizza.
Also fuck Chris Collinsworth.
Similar threads
