« Second attempted assassin's rifle | Main | Cert granted in Mexico vs. S&W case »
Oral argument in gun kit -- "ghost guns" -- Supreme Court case
The case is Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852. Here's the transcript of argument. The government's argument was brief and not interrupted by questions. Then came a lot of questions, and only Gorsuch seemed to be doubting the government position (see pp. 20-30), though Jackson raised some interesting questions (see pp. 53-56).
A good summary is at SCOTUSblog. The author thinks the regulation will be upheld.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
SCOTUSblog doesn't engage how ATF's rule contradicts many of the arguments of Bruen.
At the adoption of the 2nd Amendment and/or the 14th amendment:
1) Were only manufacturers licensed by the government allowed to manufacture firearms?
2) Were firearms required to be serialized?
3) Did manufacturers have to undergo a background check before being allowed to create firearms?
4) Did manufacturers have to keep records of all sales?
Also have to deal with the overturning of Chevron, can the ATF make law?
we must return to: Delegata potestas non potest delegari. Congress is empowered to make all regulations, rules and laws. No where is Congress delegated power to delegate any of their authority to any other entity. Unless a rule, reg or law is passed by Congress, it is not legitimate. Not one of the myriad of rules and regs in use for ALL government agencies is legitimate if written by an agency. The Courts, and esp the SC, have screwed the People with their decisions. Books on the Constitution such as Cooley and Tucker from the 19th century directly pointed out that the CC does NOT touch on things. That the CC allows regulation of things was an invention of the courts in the 20th century.
TO the point about regulating firearms for half a century, there's the counter point that for one and a half centuries those regulations did not exist. Which position shows the "historical" pattern?
The People are ignorant and kept that way through the lies taught in the government schools. The claim of SC of being the final arbiter is BS. The SC and all government is subordinate to the Constitution and thus NOT empowered to decide what the Constitution means. We the People are superior to the Constitution. We the People created the Constitution to control the government and the courts have raised themselves up illegitimately to claim the power to tell We the People what OUR law for them means.