VACATED!!!!

Me. said:
Any chance you could add some context, versus sending us to a clickbait page?

Click to expand...
504e73c1a8161ede2db9b81f3a21c2c9.jpg
 
Last edited:
DirtySCREW said:
How is a video a click bait??
Geesh

Some people might wanna watch a video...or listen to the video.
Click to expand...
videos are clickbait all the time. How is it clickbait - when the title/thumbnail doesnt really line up with the context of it all.
 
Me. said:
Posting a leading headline that drives you to another page or site (for the profit of the person who posts, or the site you land on) is pretty much the definition of “clickbait”.


Or…. as the filing we‘re talking about says:

View attachment 638487

Therefore:




View attachment 638482





I rest my case, your honor.
Click to expand...
You didn't have to click on it....lol
 
Yeah….not clicking on any of his videos.

- He’s the same one who posted the video a while back….”BREAKING NEWS…ATF HAS RAIDED RARE BREED TRIGGERS!”

Well, that turned out to be BS.

- He’s the same one who posted the video in January…”BREAKING NEWS…BRACE RULE IS A TRAP…don’t get appoved within 90 days, they’re taking enforcement action and you’re going to jail”

Well, that turned out to be BS, as well.

About the only gun dudes I will watch on youtube are Travis Haley or Mike Jones….they seem to be fairly level-headed.

The info reported in this video may be proven factual, but I’ll be damned if I click on it and watch.
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
Yeah….not clicking on any of his videos.

- He’s the same one who posted the video a while back….”BREAKING NEWS…ATF HAS RAIDED RARE BREED TRIGGERS!”

Well, that turned out to be BS.

- He’s the same one who posted the video in January…”BREAKING NEWS…BRACE RULE IS A TRAP…don’t get appoved within 90 days, they’re taking enforcement action and you’re going to jail”

Well, that turned out to be BS, as well.

About the only gun dudes I will watch on youtube are Travis Haley or Mike Jones….they seem to be fairly level-headed.

The info reported in this video may be proven factual, but I’ll be damned if I click on it and watch.
Click to expand...
God forbid news changes.....like every minute of every day

I respect a man that does as much as Jared does...doing HIS best to keep the gun community informed of all the BS "they" are attempting.

DS
 
DirtySCREW said:
God forbid news changes.....like every minute of every day

I respect a man that does as much as Jared does...doing HIS best to keep the gun community informed of all the BS "they" are attempting.

DS
Click to expand...
Look…

I’m all for keeping folks informed, but innacurate, unverified news is not “keeping folks informed”.

I’ll use the Rare Breed Trigger story, for example…

Once “news” broke that John Crump had an insider within the ATF that informed him RBT had been raided, I would think a phone call to RBT to confirm would be step 1, before posting a “breaking news” video about it. This is the type of stuff that has given me the motivation to avoid youtube with regard to “gun news”….too easy to report unverified information, or worse, just make sh*t up, like the dude a while back with the fake ATF agents who had come to collect his FRT.
 
Last edited:
most of the youtube stuff is just entertainment, of you like it, watch it.

So I wonder how this affects silencer/suppressor parts…the logic in this rule says that ATF lacks authority to regulate “parts“ because they were only delegated authority to regulate complete items.
 
GymB said:
most of the youtube stuff is just entertainment, of you like it, watch it.

So I wonder how this affects silencer/suppressor parts…the logic in this rule says that ATF lacks authority to regulate “parts“ because they were only delegated authority to regulate complete items.
Click to expand...

According to the DOJ, suppressors/suppressor components are considered “firearms”…

Not that I agree, though, because I believe every firearms regulation we have is a slap to liberty’s face.

Just spitballin’ here, but I can think of one and only one firearms law that is legitimate/warranted…

One.
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
Look…

I’m all for keeping folks informed, but innacurate, unverified news is not “keeping folks informed”.

I’ll use the Rare Breed Trigger story, for example…

Once “news” broke that John Crump had an insider within the ATF that informed him RBT had been raided, I would think a phone call to RBT to confirm would be step 1, before posting a “breaking news” video about it. This is the type of stuff that has given me the motivation to avoid youtube with regard to “gun news”….too easy to report unverified information, or worse, just make sh*t up, like the dude a while back with the fake ATF agents who had come to collect his FRT.
Click to expand...
I understand...however...everyone is trying to have to be the 1st...1st to break the story...
Jared is not perfect...but does have a lot of insider info that helps him get an edge up on his YT Gun journalists. I've seen him post vids...then 30 mins later..his competitors are posting about it.
 
DirtySCREW said:
I understand...however...everyone is trying to have to be the 1st...1st to break the story...
Click to expand...

And that’s the problem…

In the “rush” to be the first, stuff gets missed…stuff like facts.
 
The District Court has not issued its final judgement order, but has said the ATF's Final Rule will be vacated.
Further, for the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion, and VACATES the Final Rule. Separate final judgment shall issue as to the appropriate parties and claims.
Click to expand...
Unlike an injunction that can be limited in scope, vacatur makes the Rule itself null and void.
Vacatur of Rules Under the Administrative Procedure Act
Vacatur as the courts understand it is distinct from injunctions against enforcement proceedings and declaratory judgments. Unlike remedies that operate with respect to parties and parties’ rights, vacatur operates on regulations as such, depriving them of legal force. That feature makes vacatur an inherently universal or nationwide remedy.
Click to expand...
 
Dale Gribble said:
According to the DOJ, suppressors/suppressor components are considered “firearms”…

Not that I agree, though, because I believe every firearms regulation we have is a slap to liberty’s face.

Just spitballin’ here, but I can think of one and only one firearms law that is legitimate/warranted…

One.
Click to expand...
I understand. But if an 80% receiver can not be considered a receiver and therefore is not a firearm under the purview of ATF, doesn’t it follow that a threaded tube is not a suppressor and similarly not under the purview of ATF. Same for baffles, maybe undrilled, and endcaps.

The order points to other actions by ATF which ATF presented to support their case and said that they were also ultra vires, meaning that if someone asks that stuff goes away too.

Not that this much matters, ATF will likely try to not act on the ruling unless or until SCOTUS rules on their appeal.
 
GymB said:
I understand. But if an 80% receiver can not be considered a receiver and therefore is not a firearm under the purview of ATF, doesn’t it follow that a threaded tube is not a suppressor and similarly not under the purview of ATF. Same for baffles, maybe undrilled, and endcaps.

The order points to other actions by ATF which ATF presented to support their case and said that they were also ultra vires, meaning that if someone asks that stuff goes away too.

Not that this much matters, ATF will likely try to not act on the ruling unless or until SCOTUS rules on their appeal.
Click to expand...
There you go being logical and intelligent. Remember this is politics and government, so both reason and intelligence do not apply. Never have, never will.
 
This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479), is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.
 
georgel said:
Just thinking about it, wasn't the whole idea behind 80% due to the guideline set by the ATF on what qualifies as a firearm and therefore under their "jurisdiction" ? I mean, these were their own guidelines.
Click to expand...

Congress defined firearms as being under the ATF's jurisdiction. The 80% rule was actually sensible -and longstanding- regulatory action to clarify at what stage a lump of material became a firearm. But two things happened that freaked leftists out.

First, leftists realized nearly anybody with a dremel or drill could buy a kit and actually build a gun with an 80% frame or receiver. It was nearly unimaginable to leftists that ordinary people could build guns without government permission, registration or even serial numbers! Thus the left's propaganda machine went into overdrive to create the myth of "ghost guns" and demonize them in public perception. The ATF's 80% rule was obviously far too generous for the left to tolerate.

Second were the legal definitions of frames and receivers. People prosecuted in cases involving AR lower receivers challenged the technical definitions. The law defines a frame or receiver as a firearm, but the functions listed in the law are divided between an AR lower and upper. Long ago, ATF had basically said "whatever" and decided to count an AR lower as a firearm, even though it did not strictly meet the legal definition. More recently, judges began ruling that AR lowers did not meet the definition in the law. Heads exploded and hair caught on fire as leftists envisioned people being able to buy ALL of the parts -100% completed- for an AR and nothing would be recorded, registered, or otherwise government-controlled.

Thus, the ATF was instructed to adopt new regulations to re-define a firearm to make sure ARs were covered and to control "ghost guns." The only problem was that federal agencies can only interpret and clarify what already exists in laws passed by Congress. To get where leftists wanted the new regulations to go, ATF had to make up stuff that did not exist in the actual laws passed by Congress. Now a judge has ruled ATF acted without legal authority and the new regulations are null and void.
 
Last edited:
GymB said:
I understand. But if an 80% receiver can not be considered a receiver and therefore is not a firearm under the purview of ATF, doesn’t it follow that a threaded tube is not a suppressor and similarly not under the purview of ATF. Same for baffles, maybe undrilled, and endcaps.

The order points to other actions by ATF which ATF presented to support their case and said that they were also ultra vires, meaning that if someone asks that stuff goes away too.

Not that this much matters, ATF will likely try to not act on the ruling unless or until SCOTUS rules on their appeal.
Click to expand...
I hope this is challenged next. I have a can that uses wipe technology. AKA a cut out of neoprene to help with first-round pop. I cannot buy the neoprene and cut it into a circle to put in the end cap because "I am making suppressor parts," according to the ATF. This is so stupid. I still have the originals that came with the can because I cannot replace them once they are used.
 
gc70 said:
Congress defined firearms as being under the ATF's jurisdiction. The 80% rule was actually sensible -and longstanding- regulatory action to clarify at what stage a lump of material became a firearm. But two things happened that freaked leftists out.

First, leftists realized nearly anybody with a dremel or drill could buy a kit and actually build a gun with an 80% frame or receiver. It was nearly unimaginable to leftists that ordinary people could build guns without government permission, registration or even serial numbers! Thus the left's propaganda machine went into overdrive to create the myth of "ghost guns" and demonize them in public perception. The ATF's 80% rule was obviously far too generous for the left to tolerate.

Second were the legal definitions of frames and receivers. People prosecuted in cases involving AR lower receivers challenged the technical definitions. The law defines a frame or receiver as a firearm, but the functions listed in the law are divided between an AR lower and upper. Long ago, ATF had basically said "whatever" and decided to count an AR lower as a firearm, even though it did not strictly meet the legal definition. More recently, judges began ruling that AR lowers did not meet the definition in the law. Heads exploded and hair caught on fire as leftists envisioned people being able to buy ALL of the parts -100% completed- for an AR and nothing would be recorded, registered, or otherwise government-controlled.

Thus, the ATF was instructed to adopt new regulations to re-define a firearm to make sure ARs were covered and to control "ghost guns." The only problem was that federal agencies can only interpret and clarify what already exists in laws passed by Congress. To get where leftists wanted the new regulations to go, ATF had to make up stuff that did not exist in the actual laws passed by Congress. Now a judge has ruled ATF acted without legal authority and the new regulations are null and void.
Click to expand...
Which brings a up my contention that, disregarding the GCA was unlawful anyway, much of the ATF rules and regulation are outdated and moot. Technological advancements have provided so many workarounds and increased firepower, while the rules and regs focus on a very narrow aspects. Like the idea of short barrel rifles. There are many handguns today that are arguably more powerful.
 
georgel said:
Which brings a up my contention that, disregarding the GCA was unlawful anyway, much of the ATF rules and regulation are outdated and moot. Technological advancements have provided so many workarounds and increased firepower, while the rules and regs focus on a very narrow aspects. Like the idea of short barrel rifles. There are many handguns today that are arguably more powerful.
Click to expand...

The law is basically from 1934 with some updates in 1968. And the 1934 law was a wishlist Democrats had built up over the previous 30 years or so. Had the government not set up the Miller case to get a rubber stamp from the court, a real case would have arguably resulted in the 1934 law being ruled unconstitutional. On the other hand, Republicans were outnumbered in Congress but put up a good fight in 1934, preventing all firearms, including handguns and shotguns, from being nationally registered and taxed.
 
Average Joe said:
I hope this is challenged next. I have a can that uses wipe technology. AKA a cut out of neoprene to help with first-round pop. I cannot buy the neoprene and cut it into a circle to put in the end cap because "I am making suppressor parts," according to the ATF. This is so stupid. I still have the originals that came with the can because I cannot replace them once they are used.
Click to expand...
That’s not the way I understand it.

You can make your own, but can’t have extras. So you can replace them 1:1, but don’t cut a bunch out ahead of time.
 
Me. said:
Posting a leading headline that drives you to another page or site (for the profit of the person who posts, or the site you land on) is pretty much the definition of “clickbait”.


Or…. as the filing we‘re talking about says:

View attachment 638487

Therefore:




View attachment 638482





I rest my case, your honor.
Click to expand...
by that definition...I just realized I am a click.bitch :rolleyes: 😬
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom