Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF - NFA registration for suppressors ruled unconstitutional

[pmbug]

...
In GOA's case, a federal court just stuck down NFA registration for:

Suppressors
Short-Barreled Rifles
Short-Barreled Shotguns

GOA & our allies in Congress eliminated the tax.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is now UNCONSTITUTIONAL as applied.

 

[Joe King]

Wow. Great news!

 

[CiscoKid]

 

[pmbug]

Reading further on the issue and there is still more work to be done...

 

[pmbug]

The court's final judgement says it applies to: "the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future."

I asked Grok to list all the plaintiffs:

Silencer Shop Foundation;
Gun Owners of America, Inc.;
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.;
B&T USA, LLC;
Palmetto State Armory, LLC;
SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC (d/b/a SilencerCo);
Gun Owners Foundation;
the States of Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

So, I guess I'm covered as a resident of Texas, but best to become a member of GOA and buy from Palmetto State Armory (and keep the receipt!) I guess.

 

[Joe King]

The court's final judgement says it applies to: "the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future."

I asked Grok to list all the plaintiffs:

Silencer Shop Foundation;
Gun Owners of America, Inc.;
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.;
B&T USA, LLC;
Palmetto State Armory, LLC;
SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC (d/b/a SilencerCo);
Gun Owners Foundation;
the States of Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

So, I guess I'm covered as a resident of Texas, but best to become a member of GOA and buy from Palmetto State Armory (and keep the receipt!) I guess.

Notice how in stuff like this the rulings are limited as to who they apply to.
.....but if it's something that serves to destroy the nations founding principles and/or our Rights, it's always nation wide.

 

[pmbug]

The court explained why the ruling was limited - basically SCOTUS said they don't have the authority to issue a broader ruling. If it gets appealed to a higher court, I suppose that could change. From the memorandum:

... Under the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA, the Court may not impose a universal injunction of the kind requested by the Silencer Shop plaintiffs. Addressing limitations on injunctive relief under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the CASA Court held that federal courts likely lack equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. 606 U.S. at 841–47. That is because the Judiciary Act “encompasses only those sorts of equitable remedies ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity’ at our country’s inception”—a category that did not include the universal injunction or any similar form of relief. ...

 

[Joe King]

I know, there's always an excuse.

It's just funny how it always seems to work the way I described.