B.L.U.F. — Parts of the GCA of 1964 have been found unconstitutional

7. It shall be unlawful for any person—
   1. who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
   2. who is a fugitive from justice;
   3. who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
   4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
   5. who, being an alien—
      1. is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
      2. except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
   6. who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
   7. who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
   8. who is subject to a court order that—
      1. was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
      2. restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
      3. 1. includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
         2. by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
   9. who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

   to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

This is where the questions on the 4473 come from. This is part of 18 U.S. Code § 922 – Unlawful acts.

Zackey Rahimi is not a good person. He seems to be a pretty nasty piece of work from his pre-sentencing report. Regardless, he challenged his conviction as a prohibited person in possession of a firearm on constitutional grounds.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas.1 On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned
to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.

Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home. Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms. He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The protective order restrained him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm.

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order.

Rahimi claimed that 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional. The district court disagreed and found him guilty. Rahimi then appealed and the fifth circuit upheld his conviction.

After Bruen the fifth circuit court withdrew its opinion and ordered this case back with supplemental briefings and to expedite the case for oral arguments.

In the original appeal the government argued that United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3rd 203 (5th Cir. 2001) had already argued the constitutionality of 922(g)(8). In 2001 the fifth circuit applied a means-end scrutiny (not documented) and determined that 922(g)(8) was narrowly tailored to the goal of minimizing the threat of lawless violence.

Because the law was “narrowly tailored” and had an acceptable goal, the circuit court “balanced” Emerson’s rights away.

Bruen says that means-end is unacceptable when analyzing second amendment cases.

On February 2nd, 2023 the Fifth Circuit court of appeals issued this opinion on United States of America v. Zackey Rahimi

The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not.

This is another brick. The wall of gun control laws is being dismantled. Mr. Gun Control, tear down the wall!

And he isn’t going to be given a choice.

So far, the biggest loss we’ve suffered is in the second circuit where they have issued saysstays against injunctions against the CCIA.

A huge difference from even a few years ago.

---

Update: Changed it from GCA of 1964 to GCA of 1968

21-11001 5th Cir Court of Appeals, USA v Rahimi

B.L.U.F. Train of thought comes off the rails in regards to “don’t call people names”

Having read “But HE said it first!” I had a long hard think on it. I do not like the way Hagar said some of the things she said but I do understand where she is coming from.

For years I was told to take the high road. If they go low, we side step and take the high road. Over the years this came to mean getting kicked in the balls over and over again. Playing by the rules when they were cheating just didn’t work.

One time I treated a useful idiot who wanted “common sense gun control” after Sandy Hook exactly as she treated me. I said she wanted to kill children because she would let teachers carry in schools. I was told to back off. That I made her feel bad. That everybody knew she didn’t want to kill children. She had devoted her life to children.

This is the problem. We aren’t allowed to strike back.

Earlier J.Kb. posted Female privilege won her a stupid prize. In the video a young woman is attacking a larger male. She is swatting at him. Hitting at him. It seems pretty obvious that she wanted to lay hands on him.

He attempted desculation. He backed away. He tried using his voice to get her to stop.

She finally connected. He responded, picked her up and tossed her on the ground.

She got up, and started back at him and he just shoved her backwards and moved forward in an ok fighters pose. His fist were clenched.

Then, and only then did the people around step in.

You aren’t allowed to strike back. If you do, you are the bad one.

If you take it day after day, week after week and finally snap and strike back, verbally or physically, you are the evil one. You are the bad one. You should have just sucked it up.

The left learned that no matter what they said, nobody would do to them what they did to us.

Look at January 6th. For a year we had watched the riots around the country. Week after week we saw the left attacking federal buildings, marching in “black blocks”, attacking anybody that stood up to them.

We cheered on those few occasions when the leftist thugs ran into somebody that was willing to fight back. When people fought back they won.

The media painted those that stood up for themselves as extremist. Right wing extremist. The slapped a label on us and started the name calling. It was generic name calling. It worked.

When “Patriot Prayer” had a permitted event out there in leftist land, the cops showed up. They didn’t let anybody into the event space with anything remotely like a weapon. The leftist thugs gathered outside the police lines. Fully armed. When the thugs attacked the police retrieved.

The people at the event were attacked and were unarmed, until they took the weapons from the thugs attacking them.

Over the last 5 years we have all learned to fight back. Most of us do it verbally. We do it in our articles here at GunFreeZone. We do it in our interactions with others.

This is a safe place, for us. When I write something here, I hope people will read and learn. I hope that some times our articles make it out into the wild and it brings in a few more readers.

But this is my safe space.

As a representative of Miguel’s creation, I attempt to keep the name calling to a minimum.

If Hagar doesn’t feel “safe” is that because she isn’t safe? I don’t think so. I think it is because she equates the nasty name calling that happens to her to be extend here.

Bluntly, if somebody was to start calling any of our writers or commenters derogatory names, they would lose the privilege of posting.

If you want to say that my opinion is moronic, go for it. If you want to debate with me, I’ll have that debate.

I’ve taken more than a couple of comments from our readers and responded with full articles. Because they had a point.

Having babbled for to long, I’ll leave you with this:

Try not to call individuals derogatory names. There is enough stupid stuff our enemies do that you can point it out all you want.

Is this a rule? Nope. You get to say what you want within the rule posted. “Don’t be a dick”

Thank you for being with us.

On Monday a screenshot of a message came across my feed.

According to a source within the Memphis PD, the 5 charged officers weren’t hired through the usual structured PD hiring process. City leaders felt the existing process was too strict and kept certain people from getting jobs at the department. City leaders began their own hiring process and then pushed new hires into the agency, bypassing the testing procedures in place at the department. You can read between the lines what that all means.

All 5 of the charged officers were hired by the City, and didn’t go through the rigorous PD testing process. This is what quota hiring looks like. Lawsuits and dead innocents. The city should pay the lawsuits instead of the Police department. This Murder wasn’t created by old school policing or by “white supremacy”. This murder was directly facilitated by liberal policy
— Chief of Police, Karan Parmar via linkedin post

Given that this was just a screen shot it wasn’t trustworthy. Not enough to talk about.

Today an article from the New York Post there was confirmation.

At least two out of of five Memphis police officers charged with murder in the fatal beatdown of Tyre Nichols joined the force after the department relaxed its hiring requirements.

Not quite the same as what Parmar posted, but interesting.

Recruits no longer needed an associate’s degree or 54 college credit hours to join the force, and could get by with five years of work experience, Action 5 reported.

Loosening the required qualifications however means that the department is ultimately getting “less desirable” job candidates, Mike Alcazar, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a retired NYPD detective, told The Post.

“They’re desperate. They want police officers,” Alcazar said. “They’re going through it, they check off some boxes, saying, ‘Ok, they’re good enough, get them on.”
— Memphis cops charged in Tyre Nichols murder hired after PD relaxed job requirements

The Memphis police are down more than 500 men and is offering $15,000 signing bonuses. It does sound like a DEI hire.

Add to this a newly signed bill (unverified by me) in California that say that illegal aliens are now able to get jobs as law enforcement officers.

As more and more substandard people are hired as law enforcement the more the people that actually care and are good are likely to leave the job.

One of the issues with minimum wages that isn’t talked about is that when you raise the rate of the lowest, you have to raise the rate of those above them. I know a couple of people that quit when they found out the new person just hired that reported to them was making more than they were.

If you have some section lead that has been struggling for years to work their way up from $7.50/hr and is now making $14.50/hr and suddenly the guy they just hired to mop floors is making $15/hour his $0.50 raise doesn’t feel all that good.

What was old is new again is a phrase I’ve heard from time to time, be it bell bottom jeans or a dozen other fashion styles. Heinlein mentioned in one story, which I have not verified, that hemlines have a correlation to solar activity.

Music goes in cycles as well. I can’t tell you how tired I am of hearing The Wellerman because it seems that every person with a YouTube account that sings has put up their attempt.

Music often has lascivious lyrics. Things that make you go “Say what?” At University I watched Footloose in the theater multiple times. I enjoyed the music greatly. I never understood why her father was upset about her dancing to Dancing in the Streets. Years later I found out it was actually Dancing in the Sheets oh my.

Back before my time there were songs of the same level of suggestion, often a bit more. Go listen to Cole Porters Some Like It Hot.

If you thought the left had a fit over It’s Cold Outside imagine what would happen over this song:

or this one:

Here’s one from them trolling the church:

To finish out our Limelighters retrospect, their take in 1961 of “Woke Culture”.

And the original:

It is difficult to fight the government. There are often huge hurdles to overcome. When the system is working as designed, there are reasonable paths for movement toward correcting wrongs done by our government.

Taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court and arguing it will cost several million dollars. The net says that just getting a DC Lawyer to file for certiorari will run $100,000 to $250,000. That’s the cheap part.

For decades we lacked the tools to fight gun control laws. The system was weighed against us. If there was a state with an egregious gun control law it was unlikely to have courts that were far out of line with that state’s ideals. You find more leftist judges in leftist states.

FOr years the Ninth Circus Court was known for refusing to give standing to anybody regarding Second Amendment claims. The same was true in the Second Circuit Court and a few others. In addition there were many cases where when the state lost they would make a decision not to appeal in order to keep the case out of the hands of the Supreme Court.

It was better to take a lose in regards to one individual than to potentially lose everything.

We saw this in NYSR&PA v. New York City when the city and state jumped through flaming hoops in order to get the case mooted before SCOTUS could rule. Something about in the days before SCOTUS granted certiorari the city and state were arguing that if their regulation was overturned people would die and that it was absolutely necessary to keep the rule in place to save lives.

When SCOTUS granted certiorari NYC changed their rule and claimed the case was moot. NYS then got a law passed that said that the rule could not be reintroduced by NYC. This didn’t mean that the state couldn’t reintroduce the rule as law, just that NC couldn’t.

Monday the rule saved lives. Tuesday it wasn’t really necessary and so it is struck and the state is forbiddening the city from every implementing that rule again.

Before Heller it was all about “you aren’t a part of the militia, no standing” after Heller it became Miller allows some gun rights to be infringed based on type of weapon.

Bruen brought us a huge win. It gave us a tool to wield against overreaching government tyrants.

When Illinois filed their latest infringements they expected a little push back. What they got instead was an avalanche of suits filed against them.

Most of these cases are not destined for the Supreme Court. They will either be folded into other similar cases as they move up the system or the plaintiffs(Good guys) will drop out of the fight once it gets to expensive.

With Bruen in their arsenal, even a week lawyer can make a good claim against many aspects of the Illinois gun controll bills.

The state has to defend against them all, strenuously. If the gun rights team gets even one win at the district or state lower court, it gives more weight to other cases challenging the law. When you read Suddaby quoting Sinatra Jr quoting Suddaby you can see how this all works.

Of course the gun rights infringers have the same tired arguments.

Gun-rights groups refused to negotiate the measure when it was being discussed in subject matter hearings at the Illinois statehouse late last year and earlier this month.

Why would anybody be negotiating at this point with gun rights infringers?

After a multi day argument in social media my opinion got tired and lashed out “Well what law would you propose to fix the problem!!!?” he yelled in text. I quoted the Second back to him. He shut up.

Walk into a business and head over to HR. Start negotiating for your salary. They will show you to the door. They didn’t want to hire you. They don’t want you. There is nothing to negotiate.

Their negotiation is always “We are going to take all of this from you. If you promise to be quiet we won’t take as much.” Nope. I don’t agree to the deal.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

 

B.L.U.F. The DoJ got a judge to grant a TRO against Rare Breed’s FRT-15 trigger. This might have interesting fallout with regards to the NFA and/or ATF overstepping their bounds, again.

27 CFR § 479.11

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

This is the law. Congress passed this law in 1934. The issue has always been that the final ruling on what is and is not a NFA item or a firearm has been the opinion of the ATF.

[N]either laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and … the laws must not be arbitrary.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, “The RUle of Law in Times of Stress”(2003)

Judge Wood’s comments highlight the need for, first, an open and transparent system of making laws and, second, laws that are applied predictably and uniformly. Openness and transparency are essential. If people are unable to know and understand what the law is, they cannot be expected to follow it. At the same time, people deserve to know why a particular law has been passed and why they are being asked to obey it.

— American Bar Association “What is the rule of law”

There is a point in time where a piece of metal or a fabrication moves from being an object, a hunk of aluminum, or a piece of bent sheet metal to a frame or receiver. The point at which this happens is not know from the law. It isn’t defined. One moment the thing isn’t a firearm, the next it is.

For example, if you were to cast a piece of plastic in the shape of an AR15 lower and were then to fill in the fire control area with a different colored plastic, that thing is a firearm. It became a firearm when it became a receiver which happened when it was first shaped like an AR15 receiver. Filling it back in does not make it “not a frame or receiver” once a receiver, always a receiver until properly destroyed.

Now let’s say we reverse the process, we create a piece of plastic that is the shape of the fire control pocket and then cast another piece of plastic around that first piece of plastic, making one single piece of plastic. That is not a receiver when the ATF was asked.

How about if the fire control pocket is orange and the exterior is black plastic? Ummm, that MIGHT be a receiver. How about if the fire control pocket had pins in the places where you drill the holes for the selector, trigger and hammer pins? According to the ATF, even though it takes exactly the same amount of work to finish, marking those holes makes it a receiver.

The point in time where you put your first dimple on an AR-15 “80% lower” where any of those three holes will go it becomes a receiver.

How do we know? Because many different people and companies have sent samples to the ATF and asked for a determination letter. Is this a firearm? The ATF will then send back a letter saying yes or no.

So here is the magic of definitions and the every changing opinions of the ATF. Marking where the magic forth hole will go makes that hunk of aluminum not just a regular frame or receiver, it makes it a machine gun receiver.

How do you, a normal citizen know at which point you have a firearm and when you have just an object? It isn’t clear.

Because it isn’t clear, the courts rely on the agency to tell them. This is why the ATF gets to say. Now the courts do get to look at the definitions and say “ATF, you are full of shit. Your definition doesn’t match what is written in law.”

Which brings us to some stupids.

“The ATF is so wacko that they ruled that a shoelace was a machine gun.”

This is true. They did. And yes, the firearm that had that shoelace on it was a machine gun. So enterprising individual had created a fully automatic M1 Garand or made an M1A Semi-Auto rifle fully automatic by adding a string to it.

The string is tied to the trigger and then fed through a eye behind the trigger. With this you could pull the string to fire the rifle. When the rifle is fired, the charging handle comes back, the case is ejected and the bolt moves forward stripping a round from the magazine and chambering the round. The trigger is reset when it moves forward.

Now take the other end of that string and attach it to the charging handle. If the string is the right length, as the bolt, with charging handle, moves forward it pulls the string tight which pulls the trigger. Bang. Bolt and charging handle move backwards and the string goes slack. Trigger resets. Bolt moves forward and Bang again. Repeat until magazine is empty.

That is a machine gun.

As stated above, for years people that want to stay on the right side of the ATF have sent samples to the ATF and gotten determination letters back. The problem is that the ATF can change their mind. The lab back in DC sends out a determination letter that says “it is not a firearm”. A local ATF inspects the same thing and says it is. The determination letter isn’t going to keep you out of trouble.

Rare Breed Triggers, LLC and Rare Breed Firearms, LLC decided to poke the tigger. They created a device that fires only one shot “by a single function of the trigger”. This device used the rearward movement of the bolt to push the trigger forward along with the shooters finger to position the shooters finger to press the trigger again.

By engineering magic, the reset didn’t complete until it was safe for the shooter to press the trigger again.

From the outside, it looks a lot like a machine gun. It can be used to fire very rapidly. According to Rare Bread Triggers, LLC it is not a machine gun.

Their big poke in the eye of ATF was that they didn’t bother to ask ATF. They went to their lawyers, and their experts and asked “According to the law, is this a machine gun?”

Their lawyers and their experts said “it is not.”

Having received legal advise from their lawyers they proceeded to sell the FRT, or Forced Reset Trigger.

Of course the Karens of infringement land shit their collective panties. How dare somebody find a legal way to make and sell a fun switch for a firearm. Hadn’t they just gotten evil bump stocks banned? And now this FRT is trying the same thing, only different.

On January 19th, 2023 the US DoJ filed suit in the Eastern District of New York (Brookland) requesting a injunction against Rare Breed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, – v. – RARE BREED TRIGGERS, LLC; RARE BREED FIREARMS, LLC; LAWRENCE DEMONICO; KEVIN MAXWELL

The gist of the complaint is that Bruen doesn’t matter at all. Instead AR-15s are scary and some bad people have done bad things with AR-15s and the FRT-15 makes AR-15 even more super scary because they empty magazines faster!

As with most of these gun rights cases, the government always starts with telling the court how evil guns are and because guns are evil they should be restricted(infringed on) in some way. Post Bruen the government then says “and the evil thing we are going to ban isn’t protected by the second amendment, it is up to them to prove it is.” Followed by “It isn’t in common use because we they can’t show that the evil thing is actually fired in self-defense situations, much less commonly used.”

Judge Nina R Morrison granted the TRO that the DoJ requested on the 25th. This happened without attorneys for Rare Breed being there. On Jan 20th, the DoJ asked that the case be sealed and that was granted. On the 23rd the Judge granted an ex parte hearing.

An ex parte hearing is “done with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.”

The DoJ got to present their side, the Judge granted the TRO. The defendants (good guys) were served and then the DoJ requested and was granted a motion to unseal the case.

At this point there are two dates are mentioned, Feb 2nd, 2023 and Feb 16th, 2023. So we should see some action on this in the near future.

Given that this is post Bruen it will be interesting to see if the lawyers attack with a Second Amendment claim or if they go with “ATF is overstepping their bounds”.

It will be interesting in many ways. While this is of smaller concern than pistol braces and bump stocks, it is closely related and might very well get grouped with those other cases on appeal.

In my option, Rare Breed went into this business with the desire to be sued up to the Supreme Court in order to attack the NFA.

Case Docket

H/T Grossly biased headline Judge blocks sale of machine gun converters after U.S. sues

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

(Corporations are fighting huge minimum wage increases, greedy companies, putting money over people)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(Bad laws are in danger of being struck down, oh always me…)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(The Supreme Court followed the law and now I feel unsafe.  Whimper, pout)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(If you own a book you are greedy and insert insulting term, I’m better than you because I’m giving my cheap romance novels to those poor wretched creatures without my wonderfulness)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(Oh look, the Supreme Court followed the law so I’m going to infringe harder, that’ll show them)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(Clutch your pearls!  They shooter had a rifle!  And he a few boxes of ammo.)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(We are going to make this state safe for every criminal!  No more scary guns showing on somebodies hip)

As we’ve said before, when there is no open carry, cops will say that if you print you are open carrying.  If there is no CCW but there is open carry, the cops will say you are carrying concealed if any part of the holster or firearm is covered in any way.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

(Oh my goodness, a bunch of FFLs are all in the same building!  And we managed to entrap one of them to making something that can be construed as a straw man sale)

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

A little bit of good news.

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

A leftist directed a hit piece on Justice Kavanaugh based on the fact that the FBI didn’t check all of the spurious reports left on their tip line.

It has been a long week up here. Snow removal and power issues. The site keeps on trucking because it lives in a data center with all sorts of backups.

https://discourse.gunfreezone.net is back up and running. If you had some issues to begin with that is because you were attempting to do things before I had it completely restored, I think. If anybody is having any issues over there, please let me know down below in the comments.

I’ll be working on the videos shortly. That is a bit more work but we’ll get it done.

There has been a great deal of back and forth on the stabilizing brace v. SBR. Right now I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion on it.

You are likely to get hit with some photography stuff in the coming weeks. I did my first “professional” photoshoot in 25 years yesterday and the results were amazing. And I can’t share it with you all.

Hagar is worried she is going to offend you all. I’ve told her “they are adults or nearly so. If you offend them, they’ll say as much. Can’t be as bad as J.Kb. calling my beloved home state full of retards. It isn’t full, it is only the seacoast that is full of leftist retards.

We do have a short update on CCIA cases, the Second Circuit court has scheduled an expedited hearing for March of 2023. This isn’t going to sit in limbo for years. Once the Second Circuit rules, the parties will appeal to the Supreme court.

Maybe…

It could be that NYS decides to just take the loss at the appellate level in order to keep the Supreme Court from hearing the case at this time.

The mechanism for challenging congress law vs executive branch rules/eo is the same no?

Sure the source is different but the outcome is the same, bad.
— Lenard

A very good question indeed. The different methods of the federal government getting an infringement in place are:

• Congress passes a bill and it is signed into law by the president, or the president vetoes the bill and congress overrides the veto.
• An agency, established by congress to implement law, puts a regulation into place.
• The president signs an executive order

When the president signs an executive order he is not creating rules, regulation or laws. He is issuing instructions to the executive branch to do (or not do) something.

When President Trump “Banned bump stocks” his executive order did not ban bump stocks. His EO told the ATF to create regulations that would ban bump stocks.

While it might feel like the same thing in practice it is not. Obama issued orders to the executive branch to not enforce immigration law. Trump issued orders to enforce immigration law. Neither Trump nor Obama could change the law by EO, only direct the enforcement of the law.

While Obama’s “ignore EO” was in place, if a C&BP officer picked up an illegal alien, they could arrest that illegal alien and start proceedings on that illegal alien. That would have all been legal, because the immigration law that made that person an “illegal alien” was still in place. The fact that the people above that officer or the people downstream of that arrest then set the illegal alien free was because of the EO.

To attack an EO in court you go to the court and find standing. This can be difficult or easy. Living in NH it is difficult for me to have standing in Obama having issued EOs regarding illegal aliens. It might be easier for people on our southern border.

Once the court has decided you have standing, you then can ask the court to order the executive branch to follow the law. The left had many successes in finding judges that would find they had standing and then order a nationwide injunction blocking the implementation of Trump’s EOs.

The right had a much more difficult time of finding a court that would grant an injunction much less a nationwide injunction. Instead the injunctions, when given, were narrowly tailored and often held pending appeal.

At no time is the constitution directly involved in these cases. This makes it easier to bring the case.

In the second case, we have an agency making a rule or regulation with the force of law.

These are also challenged in court. They again require the plaintiffs to establish standing. The question then asked is related to procedures “Did the agency follow the law when they drafted the regulation and when they then finalized and published the regulations?” and also if the regulation actually follows the law, as written.

Congress gave the EPA extensive power over the environment. They pass regulations all the time. Those regulations have to be given a public commenting period. The EPA has to “evaluate” those comments. They then have to publish the new regulation(s) in the federal registry in order for them to become active.

The EPA could create a regulation mandating the total amount of sulfur-dioxide that a vehicle can emit per unit time or unit distance. This would be well within the framework of the law which created the EPA. It might be that they demand something that is impossible or at least prohibitively expensive, but it would be within the law.

It would be very difficult to challenge that law in court.

On the other hand, if they created a regulation that required all power lines to have a 20 ft horizontal easement extending upwards 200ft to be kept clear of all vegetation or overhangs that would be easier to challenge.

That easement regulation is outside of the boundaries of the law that created the EPA. The EPA would have to have a reason within those boundaries for the regulation. Just wanting the power to stay on isn’t enough.

The challenge would come from somebody with standing (“They intend to cut down all the trees on my property which provides any privacy!”) and then they would challenge that the regulation does not follow the law, as passed by congress.

Finally we get to laws. Laws have to be challenged by a person with standing as well. It is often times more difficult to find people with standing for challenging a law than for challenging an EO or regulation.

Consider the case of NYSR&PA v. City of New York, New York. In this case they had to find plaintiffs with standing. They found 3 or 4 people that wanted to transport their personal, registered, firearms outside of NYC. They were forbidden because the city had a rule that had the force of law forbidding transportation outside of the city.

The case was attacking a regulation, not because the regulation didn’t follow the rules when it was established, nor because the rule didn’t follow the law, but because it was a violation of the peoples second amendment rights.

The question before the court was whether the law was constitutional as applied. That law was allowed by cause of laws passed at the state level that allowed the city to make law and the police to make rules.

In the end, the police changed the policy/regulation, the city said we won’t do it again, and the state said “we aren’t going to allow the city to do that particular thing again.”

This mooted the case.

In the end, these EOs, regulations, rules, policies and laws are all infringements. They all have to be challenged in court and overturned. There are just more, and easier challenges against EOs, rules, regulation and policies than there are directly against laws.