Jump to content

VanDerStok v Garland - ATF definition of unfinished firearms

Flynn

By Flynn
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On October 5, the government appealed the injunctions issued by the district court to the US Supreme Court shadow docket.

On October 6, Justice Alito stayed the injunctions until 5pm October 16 and ordered the VanDerStok plaintiffs to respond by October 11.
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On October 10, 2023 at 09:56 PM, Euler said:→
On October 5, the government appealed the injunctions issued by the district court to the US Supreme Court shadow docket.

On October 6, Justice Alito stayed the injunctions until 5pm October 16 and ordered the VanDerStok plaintiffs to respond by October 11.

Although Alito's decision is not on the shadow docket as I write this, it's in a Miscellaneous Order. On October 16, Alito stayed the preliminary injunctions.

The case itself is still with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 7, 2023 at 03:50 PM, Euler said:→
...
On September 7, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal of the vacatur previously issued by the district court. (mp3 audio) Panel judges were Willett, Engelhardt, and Oldham.
  • 2 weeks later...
Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted
On 10/27/2023 at 6:24 PM, Euler said:

On October 24, Tactical Machining withdrew its motion for a preliminary injunction, probably because Alito stayed the other ones on October 16.

 

Today, Tactical Machining sent out the following email, announcing that they are exiting the business of building 80% lowers:

Quote

Dear Valued Customer,
We hope this email finds you in good health and high spirits. Today, we are reaching out to express our deepest gratitude for your unwavering support over the past 15 years. Your loyalty and trust have meant the world to us, and it has been an incredible journey serving you all.
However, we have some bittersweet news to share. As of this moment, once our current stock runs out, we will not be manufacturing any more of our beloved products. This decision was not made lightly and comes with a heavy heart.
The reason behind this difficult choice is the challenging landscape created by unconstitutional laws being enforced by the current administration. We've fought long and hard to continue our mission, but unfortunately, the obstacles have become insurmountable, and we must regrettably bow out.
This is a tough moment for us, as we have always strived to provide you with the best products and services. We want to assure you that this decision is not a reflection of our dedication to you, our cherished customers. We've cherished every interaction, every partnership, and every opportunity to serve you.
We want to take this moment to thank you sincerely for the trust you've placed in us, for the feedback that helped us improve, and for the memories we've created together over these 15 incredible years. Your loyalty has been the fuel that powered us through both the highs and lows.
While this chapter may be coming to a close, we are still here to support you and address any questions or concerns you might have during this transition. We have started another company manufacturing gearboxes for trailer jacks, a product that we invented. These will be sold at www.trailergearbox.com, so we will still be around, just not in the firearm parts business.  Feel free to reach out to our dedicated customer service team at Sales@tacticalmachining.com or 386-490-4464.
In conclusion, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for being a part of this incredible journey with us. We are deeply grateful for your support, and we will forever cherish the relationships we've built over the years.
Wishing you all the best in your future endeavors, and we hope our paths cross again someday.

With warm regards and heartfelt thanks,
Tactical Machining

 

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
Hmm, I had a thought, so I double-checked.

On January 5, the district court ordered the defendants to notify the court if/when they intended to file a petition for ceriorari (or seek any other sort of review by the US Supreme Court).

Defendants filed their cert petition today. They did not file a notice with the district court (yet?).
  • 2 months later...
Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 4/22/2024 at 1:30 PM, John Q Public said:

This is not good, it's not a case that helps us a bunch and if they whack it doesn't get us much. All this case will do, if ruled in our favor, will whip up crap to anything else after. IMO this is a loser for us right now. Ancillary BS. 

 

I beg to differ, we have a long history of the ATF making stuff up as they go along and changing the rules on the fly, those changes have real-life legal consequences that turn people into felons for something they may have legally owned for years, this needs to end and this case could end that and in the end that is a good thing for the 2nd community...  And who knows, with all the lower courts ignoring Heller/Bruen I would not be surprised if the court walks the line and possibly tosses in a reminder or two about Heller/Bruen to put the lower courts on notice...

yurimodin Member

yurimodin

Posted
Posted
On 4/22/2024 at 1:30 PM, John Q Public said:

This is not good, it's not a case that helps us a bunch. All this case will do, if ruled in our favor, will whip up crap for anything after.

 

IMO this is a lose, or lose more. Look at who pushed it to the SC.... 

 

JQ

Its just one more thing to ignore if they screw us again. This entire government's legitimacy is hanging on by a single tattered thread anyway.

  • 2 weeks later...
MrTriple Member

MrTriple

Posted
Posted

I understand the idea of SCOTUS taking appeals made by the federal government, those are special circumstances. But when they take them on administrative law grounds and not explicitly 2A grounds, while seemingly not taking action on actual 2A cases, I remain curious as to why.

 

I mean, they took Dobbs despite how contentious that topic is, and frankly anything gun-related isn't even remotely as contentious a topic as abortion. So why the reticence?

 

Also, why the refusal to use the shadow docket?

  • 1 month later...
gunuser17 Member

gunuser17

Posted
Posted

The Supreme Court will generally take the path of least resistance in resolving a case.  That almost always means that the Supreme Court will  try to resolve a case without addressing constitutional issues if at all possible.  That is just the way they work for the most part.  So when they can say that the statute does not permit what an agency has done and that resolves the case - then they will full stop and terminate their analysis there without addressing any constitutional issues.  The bump stock case and the abortion pill case were both addressed thiis way.  In one, the agency exceeded their statutory authority and in the other, the agencies did not exceed their authority.

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...