Brown v ATF- WV federal court strikes down part of GCA 1968

[grayfox]

West Va federal court struck down part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, by ruling that prohibiting 18-20 yr olds from buying a handgun and/or ammo from an ffl is unconstitutional. This ruling (which the ATF will probably appeal, but whatever) is significant in at least 2 ways.
1. It hits at the GCA 68, and is nationwide.
2. It is a summary judgment, which came about because the ATF's (pitiful) attempts to say there was a conflict of the facts etc, (which the judge ruled them out), thus with no conflict on fact, and the law being completely on side of the plaintiffs, then a summary judgment can be entered and there is no need for any trial.

Brown v ATF, Case 1:22-cv-00080-TSK Document 40 Filed 12/01/23.
I will post a copy here, of the pdf.

[Happy2Shoot]

I look forward to mail order firearms!

[grayfox]

I'm not sure it will come to that. But I do see that the logic of Bruen applies to suppressors, in 1934 the tax stamp amounted to days maybe weeks of income, so very expensive, and only a very few were in possession by citizens. However, now, the tax penalty - 200 bucks the same as back then - is a pittance of value compared to what it was back then, and I believe there are millions in use, lawful (hearing protection - noise pollution is also an EPA consideration ala EPAct of 1990). The point here is that they are now a "weapon" in "common use" by law-abiding people for legitimate purposes. Therefore they are no longer "unusual and dangerous"... which is the opposite position, and between these 2 is which Bruen requires to determine if a weapon falls under 2A protection or not. The only extra thing to attack is that it is unconstitutional to "tax" a constitutional right. That's why "poll taxes" were (justifiably) found to be unconstitutional back in the day. The State cannot tax a right, only a privilege. You cannot be taxed for going to church, nor for assembling to petition your government, nor for thinking contrary to the party in power, nor for the right to vote, nor for the right to be secure in your persons and effects, etc etc. "The power to tax is the power to kill."

I've read in a couple places now that some advocates on our side are beginning to understand and use the tactic of incrementalism. The left, in attacking so many rights, doesn't go after the entire enchilada all at once (something conservatives are fond of advocating). Rather they go after it piecemeal, case in point "we only want to have some commonsense gun controls... blah blah blah." So in the same spirit, (and recognizing that any bureaucracy is a huge battleship that cannot turn on a dime), go after these things one at a time, building btw the case law that will can be used to justify turning over yet another part of the 2A unconstitutional-stuff.

So. Yesterday, Heller, NYState/Pistol Assoc/Bruen. Today the 18-20 yo handgun part of the 68-GCA. Tomorrow the suppressors (whether 1934 or '68, I forget which but you get the point).
Common use (>200,000 as in the stun gun case). Legal purposes. Law-abiding citizen ownership. Not "dangerous and unusual." Stare-decisis in our favor.

[ported45]

I would like to know how a gun part (suppressor) that is not even necessary for the operation of a firearm is classified ITSELF as a firearm? Isn't that how the ATF is able to regulate them in the first place, that suppressors are considered "firearms" in and of themselves?

[MrDraco]

I would like to know how a gun part (suppressor) that is not even necessary for the operation of a firearm is classified ITSELF as a firearm? Isn't that how the ATF is able to regulate them in the first place, that suppressors are considered "firearms" in and of themselves?

The ATF doesn't classify a suppressor as a firearm, they classify it as an accessory. However their logic to the ability to regulate them is the same logic they are using to attempt to regulate bump stocks and now pistol braces. Their logic being that because they are considered as accessories and not firearms, they are not protected nor regulated under 2A and that allows any agency to regulate them as they see fit.

[kmon]

Wasn't suppressors part of the 1934 act? $200 tax stamp for owning one set then which prohibited the average person from owning one in the Great Depression and long time after.

[MrDraco]

Wasn't suppressors part of the 1934 act? $200 tax stamp for owning one set then which prohibited the average person from owning one in the Great Depression and long time after.

Yes. But the reason they was part of it is no longer the reason the ATF justifies it to the pro-2a groups.

[Konocti's Wigwam]

Burn ATF, burn!