Federal Judge Vacates ATF’s Unlawful “Frame or Receiver” Rule

[bgcatty]

Let’s hope SCOTUS remains consistent with prior favorable decisions on the 2A regarding the issue in this thread.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Merging...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Merging...

 

[KellyinAvon]

I'm going to need a crib sheet to keep up with all these cases.

27 states press SCOTUS to halt Biden ATF’s 'blatant attack' on gun owners, claiming end-run around Congress

"And in this brief, Amici (party) States describe some of the specific machinations ATF has used in the past to get to its desired results — erasing ordinary meaning, stripping words from context, ignoring comments, short-circuiting APA requirements, and blinding itself to the real-world consequences of its own actions."

VanDerStok is a magazine writer and a former law enforcement officer, according to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, who argued in a column that prior to the mass production of guns, guns were often manufactured by the user.

27 states press SCOTUS to halt Biden ATF’s 'blatant attack' on gun owners, claiming end-run around Congress

West Virginia and Montana led 27 states in filing an amicus brief opposing the ATF's new rule expanding the definition of what a gun is.

www.foxnews.com

 

[DadSmith]

https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/23-852-Amicus-Brief-1.pdf

This is a PDF file dl from GunOwners.org

 

[DadSmith]

NRA-ILA | NRA Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Challenge to ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule

On August 20, NRA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to the ATF’s Final Rule that redefines the Gun Control Act of 1968’s definition of “firearm” to include precursors of frames or receivers and weapon parts kits.

www.nraila.org

 

[KellyinAvon]

NRA-ILA | NRA Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Challenge to ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule

On August 20, NRA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to the ATF’s Final Rule that redefines the Gun Control Act of 1968’s definition of “firearm” to include precursors of frames or receivers and weapon parts kits.

www.nraila.org

I need to look up who voted for approval on the ATF Director who knows nothing about guns, but was a more acceptable option than Gary Busey on meth.

 

[Mgderf]

I need to look up who voted for approval on the ATF Director who knows nothing about guns, but was a more acceptable option than Gary Busey on meth.

What is NOT a more acceptable option than Gary Busey on meth?
Wait, Kamala Harris for one...

 

[bobzilla]

What is NOT a more acceptable option than Gary Busey on meth?
Wait, Kamala Harris for one...

and Uncle Joe. And Drunk Pelosi. And whiny aoc.

 

[JAL]

BATFE gets caught by plaintiff (VanDerStok) committing perjury in a brief to SCOTUS (i.e. BATFE knowingly lied to SCOTUS). The brief filed by BATFE claimed the Polymer80 product changed between the 2017 and 2022 classification letters, and therefore BATFE's decisions were in accordance with existing law and the new ATF Rule. VanDerStok's lawyers pointed out that filings by BATFE in lower court briefs stated there was no difference.

OOPSIE #1! The U.S. Solicitor General was forced to apologize to SCOTUS for lying to them. The Solicitor General then files another letter making another claim that the 2017 and 2022 Polymer80 products were different in other aspects. VanDerStok's attorneys then point out that this claim is also a perjury before SCOTUS. OOPSIE #2. "You can bet your sweet bippy" that SCOTUS justices will take the Solicitor General to task over this next Tuesday, Oct 8th, during Oral Arguments.

Mark W. Smith (Four Boxes Diner) posted good video about it today. Yes, he can be verbose. For he TLDR crowd, jump to about 7:56 minutes into the video to get to the gist of it.



I'd bet my sweet bippy a healthy majority of the justices (six of them) will be wondering about and inquiring about what else the Solicitor General and BATFE have outright lied about in their briefs. The Solicitor General and BATFE have "impeached" themselves before the court (i.e. demonstrating they have no credibility and their filings have no veracity). An attorney is an Officer of the Court. Violating "Candor Toward the Tribunal" (i.e. lying to a court) as an offense for which serious sanctions can be issued by the court. Attorney(s) filing briefs before a court also swear to their veracity and truthfulness under penalty of perjury. It's part of their signature block at the end of the brief.

 

[jedi]

In a perfect world where the rules/laws were followed (aka not the reality we live in) what is the punishment for making these false statements in writing and giving them to the court as facts?

 

[JAL]

In a perfect world where the rules/laws were followed (aka not the reality we live in) what is the punishment for making these false statements in writing and giving them to the court as facts?

"Candor Toward the Tribunal" in Indiana is Rule 3.3 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, part of the Indiana Court Rules under Indiana Statutes and Codes. Every legal jurisdiction I've ever dealt with or brushed up against, including the military, has a "Rule 3.3". It's pretty much boiler plate.

Rule 3.3 In Indiana (note that Rule 1.6 cited in Rule 3.3 covers Attorney-Client Privilege and required confidentiality) . . .

"(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:​

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;​

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or​

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.​

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.​

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.​

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."​

I have limited experience watching from a ring-side seat, having been involved in and party to some lengthy civil litigations -- in which opposing counsels lied to the court with seeming impunity. Everyone present knew they were lying, including the judge. It occurred on more than one occasion. I also had ring-side seats in a number of military court-martials, and conducted proceedings under Articles 15 and 32 of the UCMJ in the role of a "tribunal" for them. In one particular military court-martial the JAG officer who lied to the court was severely slammed by the military judge (a senior JAG officer appointed to be a judge). It was an immediate career ender for the JAG officer who lied. He tendered an "unqualified resignation" from the service shortly after receiving a formal General Officer Letter of Reprimand. I was utterly shocked the first time I saw it occur in a civilian court and nothing happened to the attorney who did it. One of a several reasons I'll never survive voir dire in a jury pool and actually serve on a jury when I publicly relate seeing attorneys violate Rule 3.3 with seeming impunity as part of my prior court experiences.

Military JAG offices have prosecutors, defense counsels and judges. They're "partitioned" in their work including physical office spaces to protect attorney-client privilege and their work products from disclosure to those who shouldn't have access to it by law.

I'll let our resident attorneys weigh in on what actually happens when an attorney lies to a court in oral argument or in writing. They'll have more experience in this.

 

[jedi]

Thanks so basically as HC said....

 

[Alamo]

"… some lengthy civil litigations -- in which opposing counsels lied to the court with seeming impunity. Everyone present knew they were lying, including the judge. …

I turned 18 all a senior in high school, registered to vote, and immediately after graduation from Brown County High School in 1978 I was called to jury duty.

It was a civil trial that featured plaintiff-provided video testimony from a psychiatrist or psychologist, I forget which, about the mental state of the plaintiff who said she was suffering from what I think we would now call PTSD. The plaintiff claimed this was due to the actions of a railroad company. The mental health expert testified that the plaintiff did suffer PTSD.

At the end of the trial on the railroad lawyer was doing his final argument. Guy was over six feet tall, full head of white hair, blue three piece suit, white shoes, spoke like Foghorn Leghorn. Very memorable, looked clownish, but very smart.

During his final argument he clearly stated that the mental health person testified that the plaintiff did NOT suffer from PTSD. Nobody in the court raised an eyebrow except the jury. The plaintiff’s lawyer made a very mild reference to this in his closing, something like “contrary to my opponent’s mistaken recollection…”

Once the jury went into deliberation the first thing everyone talked about was how Foghorn Leghorn lied to us. No one believed that was a mistake. Turned out to be the only thing we agreed on, ended a hung jury, but that’s another story.

But I never forgot that lawyer spoutin’ off to us that day.