JackDaWack

I know AGs can hire "special assistants", but I don't think they can just take over the entire case and boot the AG. I do beleive the AG has sole discretion on this, though. The legislature can't just hire someone to replace the AG, a clear issue with separation of power.

By that standard my wife's crv would be bone dry for many miles before an oil change.. but it has the "relatively" same amount when doing an oil change. Old oil goes into the oil containers so I know how much is lost. No much, maybe half a qt in 6k

The entire point of district courts is to serve at the state level. SCOTUS serves to rule over the entire country. So to speak that makes districts courts the gatekeepers of state law. It takes two really bad decisions to make it to SCOTUS. Many times(way more often then not), SCOTUS or even circuits decline to hear appeals ruled on by districts over state law. With regard, SCOTUS decides on less than 3% of laws challenged at the state level. Your points are all valid and I agree with them. I dont see how they planned on getting emergency relief with arguments that would require to set precedent and did not rely upon it.

The same reason they did it last time. Alito looks at this as "skipping the line". SCOTUS is NOT the gate keeper of state laws, District courts and Circuit Courts should both have formal rulings prior to SCOTUS spending time on the issue. The only time I see SCOTUS taking on these kinds of requests if it's a federal law in question.

What's the cost of freedom? You have 2 options here. Cower over the new rules, get rid of your others and spend money modifying them... you cant sell them BTW. Or, call their bluff. Are well all going to just let the FATF roll all over our 2a rights? Especially over something with such ambiguity.

Alito basically said the upper courts should let the lowers courts do their jobs first. So I would guess the 3rd Circuit under his purview would decline to do anything until the lower courts case is ruled on. This is only a TRO, these cases will have full review for a permanent ruling. No reason upper courts should start meddling with incomplete lower court orders. Once the district court completes its review and rules, the circuits can step in... Alito is basically saying, why the hell would SCOTUS step in when the district court hasn't even formally ruled on the issue yet? Which was his way of saying the 2nd district overstepped.

On multiple occasions the ATF has tried to go after people and they ultimately "did nothing". It's apparently better to keep the rules on the books for these purposes than have them stuck down trying to go after a single individual. In 2019 A guy in Texas was charged, and the charges later dropped for a bump stock by the DOJ.

Both those pistols would handle it just fine. It's just got more power factor. I shoot it out a P938.

Hornady critical duty! 9mm 135gr +p

Or hear me out.. you do nothing because they can do nothing. The fact is, it is NOT an SBR by statutory definition, and that is all that matters in a court room. These "rules" are designed to fuck with FFLs and manufacturers and get them to stop selling these items... they can lose their licenses just because the ATF says so.. Bumpstock, 80% recievers, and now braces.... millions of people freely use these items and will continue knowing full well the ATF rules cant make it through an indictment.

That's what the demand of a hearing is for... if the "facts" stood up it wouldn't be required. But the state can only make oral arguments to twist their position enough times it might make sense. 2nd court of appeals is a bunch of douchebags that's why And Alito basically told them so...

It's a product of the Biden Administration, what exactly did you expect?

There will be a hearing, has to be. The next set of sensitive places, the state will have to meet the burden of Bumbs ruling in Koons and provide supporting evidence. Bumb can't just rule on the other areas without arguments from the state or plantiffs, and while I'm sure Bumb would prefer written arguments at this point, the states going to demand wasting the courts time.

Questions A) does the court order explicitly state you can only carry the firearms listed? Or it just lists what you can carry. B) why would you reapply after the court order is vacated? If it simply lists the firearms you can carry, but doesn't state you can ONLY carry them and nothing else, than the court order doesn't stop you from carrying other pistols with the new law. A court order is not the permit, and no you would not reapply because the court order that many people don't even have is vacated.

They want a consumption tax aka sales tax.. but that means everyone has to pay some taxes and we can't have that!

Pistol/Others?

ATF "letters" are non binding and are meaningless.. anything the ATF puts out can completely override the last. lol, ATF calls up manufacture for shipments of banned firearms, tracks to FFL, asks FFL for sales records... ATF is standing at your door.

Technically, any time a weapon is used in a crime it carries an unlawful possession charge.

NJ and the ATF are probably getting ready to send out their letters to everyone who bought one. CT just has a head start.

It doesn't say "comfortable", even that has surface area to be shouldered.. if it can touch your shoulder.... that's literally the only qualifying factor. They will argue a sharp point actually makes for a more secure shouldering. Because they can at this point basically say whatever they want.

Enough of a surface? The rule states, it has "surface area" to be shouldered. Anything and everything has surface area to be shouldered, including a bare extension tube. whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles; whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles; whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed; whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations; the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community

He has done nothing but express the same frustration as us all.

Just to clarify at my point in understanding. There is NO form. The comments basically showed it was absurd so they instead wrote out very vague criteria. With no way to know how to use the criteria the only way to know for sure is to assume anything with a brace on it and a barrel under 16" is an SBR. The alternative is to ignore it because you can't figure it out, no one can, and that is also a favorable outcome.

The rule is confusing, that's for sure. It's also incredibly vague.

NJ is completely seperate from this. You have to adhere to both this and NJ law treated completely separately. I used both responses as a means to clarify eachhother. If the 27" is a rifle in one, it's a rifle in the other since nothing in the rules differentiates one from the other past 26" Federally speaking by some absurd reasoning a >26" pistol or other with a brace is just automatically a rifle