5 ms·

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

114 points by Bender 6mo ago

advisedwang 6mo ago
The actual opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111422830.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101... Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-polis/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...
Papazsazsa 6mo ago
The bigger question is constructive prohibition, i.e. can the government kill civil rights with a thousand cuts. This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping. Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/24-1209/24-1209-2026-04-23.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2... And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111422830.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...
- mullingitover 6mo ago
  Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?
  - trollbridge 6mo ago
    Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.
    - nullocator 6mo ago
      That's a funny way of saying they ruled that race-base gerrymandering is legal in effectively all circumstances. The supreme court's ruling is basically: "Racial gerrymandering is insulated from legal recourse as long as it's packaged as partisan mapmaking"
      - JCTheDenthog 6mo ago
        [dead]
    - mullingitover 6mo ago
      > Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature' that it is. This argument does a disservice to the people who worked so hard to pack it. > The VRA wasn’t struck down either I mean, that's your opinion. but you're not on the SC and someone who is says that this decision's effect is to "eviscerate the law."
      - sidewndr46 6mo ago
        packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR
        mullingitover 6mo ago
        Incorrect.[1] [1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing
        arikrahman 6mo ago
        Thanks for giving the citation based on reality and keeping it calm and rational in contrast.
akersten 6mo ago
Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?
- yieldcrv 6mo ago
  my bet it is that it only affects the states in the 10th circuit, but could be assumed to be the law of the land, until a case is brought in which case there is only an issue if a different appeals circuit rules differently
  - rtkwe 6mo ago
    Correct, it's only /binding/ on courts in the same District but they are often persuasive when cited in other districts if the decision is well reasoned and less controversial. This one will likely be contested, the circuits have very different ideas about gun rights.
    - ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago
      If even the district court rules this way it's hard to see a World where the supreme court doesn't also rule that way. Unless there's been court packing by then of course.
      - rtkwe 6mo ago
        I've given up trying to logic out what the court will decide on many issues, they're quite willing to find new legal arguments to allow their preferred outcome in a particular case.
- bluGill 6mo ago
  Those are different circuit courts where this ruling doesn't directly apply. However anyone who wants to challenge those laws would be stupid to not bring this to the judge - even though it doesn't apply, the judge still needs to justify why they are ignoring it and on appeal the circuit court will mention this ruling (either why they agree, or why they think it is wrong) - assuming the appeal is accepted.
yieldcrv 6mo ago
10th circuit, no other circuit ruling on the case, a state bringing the case I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this
- rtkwe 6mo ago
  I think you misunderstand how the courts work. No other court would rule on this case because it wouldn't be heard in another circuit and the Supreme Court is the ONLY court anyone can appeal to after a circuit court, the only other options are convening a larger group for an en banc hearing but that doesn't apply here afaik.
  - yieldcrv 6mo ago
    I was trying to save Colorado taxpayers and people that disagree some time and energy. To focus on what they can control which isn’t this. Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.
    - rtkwe 6mo ago
      Splits don't actually force the Supreme Court to take it up on any thing approaching an immediate time frame. There was a split about what "exceeding authorized access" meant in CFAA for ~10 years before the Supreme Court deigned to take it up and resolve the difference.
15155 6mo ago
Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
- advisedwang 6mo ago
  Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?
  - jp191919 6mo ago
    Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.
  - 15155 6mo ago
    Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me. Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string. FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
  - iamnothere 6mo ago
    You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6mo ago
      Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/received_a_reckless_driving_ticket_on_my_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...
exabrial 6mo ago
This is incredibly good news to anyone that believe in freedom of speech and expression.
- jjtheblunt 6mo ago
  that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 6mo ago
    It's possible GP got it wrong, but there is a "code is speech" angle on this. Shapes can't be illegal.
  - PowerElectronix 6mo ago
    The second protects the first
    - autoexec 6mo ago
      I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school children, and gang members. I'm not even saying that shootouts are a good way to handle the situation, or that people should be trying to put things right by shooting other people but the idea that the 2nd amendment is protecting us from violations of our freedoms or the abuses of government is clearly pure fantasy.
      - rcoveson 6mo ago
        It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical. But on deeper reflection I would hope that we can acknowledge that violent revolution is not an impossibility, it's merely an improbability. And anybody who tries to tell you that hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight is uninformed, to put it lightly. The fact that the current level of rights abuses (which I would agree is much too high and climbing!) has not lead to a violent revolution is a feature, not a bug.
oomuinio 6mo ago
[dead]

114 points by Bender 6mo ago

The actual opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111422830.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101... Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-association-for-gun-rights-v-polis/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...

Papazsazsa 6mo ago

The bigger question is constructive prohibition, i.e. can the government kill civil rights with a thousand cuts. This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping. Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/24-1209/24-1209-2026-04-23.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2... And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111422830.pdf https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

mullingitover 6mo ago
Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?
- trollbridge 6mo ago
  Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.
  - nullocator 6mo ago
    That's a funny way of saying they ruled that race-base gerrymandering is legal in effectively all circumstances. The supreme court's ruling is basically: "Racial gerrymandering is insulated from legal recourse as long as it's packaged as partisan mapmaking"
    - JCTheDenthog 6mo ago
      [dead]
  - mullingitover 6mo ago
    > Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869. I'm sorry but this is an unserious, bad faith nitpick. The court is absolutely packed by carefully manipulating the membership. The confirmation process for most of my lifetime has been an intensely partisan operation to ensure only the most hardened political operatives land on the court, with the intention of turning it into the 'super legislature' that it is. This argument does a disservice to the people who worked so hard to pack it. > The VRA wasn’t struck down either I mean, that's your opinion. but you're not on the SC and someone who is says that this decision's effect is to "eviscerate the law."
    - sidewndr46 6mo ago
      packing SCOTUS has always referred to attempts to add justices, which is what was attempted by FDR
      - mullingitover 6mo ago
        Incorrect.[1] [1] https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing
        arikrahman 6mo ago
        Thanks for giving the citation based on reality and keeping it calm and rational in contrast.

akersten 6mo ago

Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?

yieldcrv 6mo ago
my bet it is that it only affects the states in the 10th circuit, but could be assumed to be the law of the land, until a case is brought in which case there is only an issue if a different appeals circuit rules differently
- rtkwe 6mo ago
  Correct, it's only /binding/ on courts in the same District but they are often persuasive when cited in other districts if the decision is well reasoned and less controversial. This one will likely be contested, the circuits have very different ideas about gun rights.
  - ApolloFortyNine 6mo ago
    If even the district court rules this way it's hard to see a World where the supreme court doesn't also rule that way. Unless there's been court packing by then of course.
    - rtkwe 6mo ago
      I've given up trying to logic out what the court will decide on many issues, they're quite willing to find new legal arguments to allow their preferred outcome in a particular case.
bluGill 6mo ago
Those are different circuit courts where this ruling doesn't directly apply. However anyone who wants to challenge those laws would be stupid to not bring this to the judge - even though it doesn't apply, the judge still needs to justify why they are ignoring it and on appeal the circuit court will mention this ruling (either why they agree, or why they think it is wrong) - assuming the appeal is accepted.

yieldcrv 6mo ago

10th circuit, no other circuit ruling on the case, a state bringing the case I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this

rtkwe 6mo ago
I think you misunderstand how the courts work. No other court would rule on this case because it wouldn't be heard in another circuit and the Supreme Court is the ONLY court anyone can appeal to after a circuit court, the only other options are convening a larger group for an en banc hearing but that doesn't apply here afaik.
- yieldcrv 6mo ago
  I was trying to save Colorado taxpayers and people that disagree some time and energy. To focus on what they can control which isn’t this. Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.
  - rtkwe 6mo ago
    Splits don't actually force the Supreme Court to take it up on any thing approaching an immediate time frame. There was a split about what "exceeding authorized access" meant in CFAA for ~10 years before the Supreme Court deigned to take it up and resolve the difference.

15155 6mo ago

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

advisedwang 6mo ago
Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?
- jp191919 6mo ago
  Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.
- 15155 6mo ago
  Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me. Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string. FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.
- iamnothere 6mo ago
  You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads. Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here. Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6mo ago
    Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/received_a_reckless_driving_ticket_on_my_private/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...

exabrial 6mo ago

This is incredibly good news to anyone that believe in freedom of speech and expression.

jjtheblunt 6mo ago
that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6mo ago
  It's possible GP got it wrong, but there is a "code is speech" angle on this. Shapes can't be illegal.
- PowerElectronix 6mo ago
  The second protects the first
  - autoexec 6mo ago
    I'll believe that the moment I see it. Seems to me like most of the 2nd amendment crowd is more likely to cheer on the destruction of freedoms than defend them. There are a whole lot of freedoms being violated in the US right now including violations of people's first amendment rights. You can even go on youtube and find countless examples, but somehow all the bullets seem to be mostly going into suicides, school children, and gang members. I'm not even saying that shootouts are a good way to handle the situation, or that people should be trying to put things right by shooting other people but the idea that the 2nd amendment is protecting us from violations of our freedoms or the abuses of government is clearly pure fantasy.
    - rcoveson 6mo ago
      It's as much a fantasy as any other "nuclear option", including the literal nuclear option. Violent revolutions are a part of our history, and they still happen around the world today. Unless things go very, very poorly in the next few decades, we probably won't see another one in the USA in our lifetimes. We can all admit that that fact makes the 2nd amendment's usefulness feel fantastical. But on deeper reflection I would hope that we can acknowledge that violent revolution is not an impossibility, it's merely an improbability. And anybody who tries to tell you that hundreds of millions of small arms are inconsequential in a fight is uninformed, to put it lightly. The fact that the current level of rights abuses (which I would agree is much too high and climbing!) has not lead to a violent revolution is a feature, not a bug.

oomuinio 6mo ago

[dead]