7 comments

  • Papazsazsa 2 hours 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/ca10/2...

    And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

    • mullingitover 33 minutes 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 6 minutes 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.

  • 15155 1 hour 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.

    • mananaysiempre 1 hour ago
      > "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

      Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)

    • advisedwang 1 hour ago
      Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?
      • iamnothere 1 hour 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 1 hour 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/receive...

          • 15155 1 hour ago
            FWIW: this isn't a universally-applicable statement, plenty of states forbid DWI during any and all operation of motor vehicles, including on private property.
            • chroma 58 minutes ago
              I think in almost all states DUI applies to private roads accessible to the public, such as parking lots and driveways. Mythbusters drove drunk on a closed course in California and that was legal.

              Only a few states absolutely forbid operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (I know Washington is one). That said, you’d have to do something pretty absurd to attract the attention of law enforcement if you’re staying on your own land.

      • jp191919 1 hour ago
        Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.
      • chroma 1 hour ago
        Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.
      • 15155 1 hour 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.

    • SpicyLemonZest 1 hour ago
      "Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".
      • 15155 1 hour ago
        "Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation.

        What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

        • SpicyLemonZest 1 hour ago
          I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.
          • 15155 1 hour ago
            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity

            If one wants to make something illegal, the onus is on the lawmaker to write precise legislation. This is centuries-old legal doctrine.

          • AnimalMuppet 1 hour ago
            "Established law for decades" seems to me to be almost the opposite of "neener neener", which I take to be more along the lines of "cutesy legal tricks".
        • StefanBatory 1 hour ago
          Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)
          • 15155 1 hour ago
            Basic English skills? Why would the prefatory clause limit the latter? Even the most left-leaning [current] SCOTUS justices didn't/don't attempt to make this argument.

            'A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.'

            Whose rights shall not be infringed here, the breakfast's or those of the people?

            • scotus_speaks 54 minutes ago
              [flagged]
              • 15155 49 minutes ago
                And you still lose on the merits:

                https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

              • dabluecaboose 41 minutes ago
                You can believe a guy who wrote a pissy dissent over a case he was on the losing side of, or...

                How about the people who made it happen in the first place?

                "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

                "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

                "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

                "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

                "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

                "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), [1774-1776]

                "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

                "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

                "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

                "To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

                "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

                "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

                “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

                "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

                "Context clues" are a critical part of reading comprehension. When the meaning of a word or phrase is unclear, the other writing surrounding the word or phrase can be used as a clue as to what the author meant. Using context clues, we can track down what they probably meant.

                • 15155 35 minutes ago
                  But but but the Framers disagreed on whether or not to include the Bill of Rights at all! That must mean that they didn't think people should own arms!
          • JCTheDenthog 52 minutes ago
            "A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and use Toasters, shall not be infringed."

            Who has the right to keep and use toasters? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast?

          • thaumasiotes 8 minutes ago
            > Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand?

            The word "regulated", which has no semantic overlap with the modern meaning of the same word.

      • JCTheDenthog 55 minutes ago
        >who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts"

        It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".

  • advisedwang 2 hours ago
  • akersten 2 hours 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?
    • bluGill 2 hours 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.
    • jmward01 1 hour ago
      It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.
      • dabluecaboose 1 hour ago
        Unjustified cynicism aside, the same technical reasons that a ban on printing gun parts is infeasible apply to printing iphone cases. There's no feasible way to detect what a printer is printing.
      • mghackerlady 55 minutes ago
        I very much wouldn't put it past this government from banning unauthorised part printing in some draconian DMCA-esque law bought and paid for by John Deere and Apple, but is there any current proposals for such a law?
      • AnimalMuppet 1 hour ago
        You just need a gun design that has a part that can double as an iphone case...
        • chroma 53 minutes ago
          You joke but phone mounts for firearms are a thing. People use them to record gun PoV videos and to make range estimation (such as dope charts) more accessible.
    • yieldcrv 2 hours 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 1 hour 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 20 minutes 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.

  • exabrial 1 hour ago
    This is incredibly good news to anyone that believe in freedom of speech and expression.
    • jjtheblunt 25 minutes ago
      that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.
  • yieldcrv 2 hours 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 1 hour 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.
  • oomuinio 17 minutes ago
    [dead]