this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
115 points (93.2% liked)

News

23287 readers
4353 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
115
US supreme court blocks ‘ghost gun’ makers again from selling at-home kits (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Justices reverse federal judge’s order that allowed manufacturers to sell unregulated kits that convert into firearms

The US supreme court on Monday barred two Texas-based manufacturers from selling products that can be quickly converted at home into firearms called “ghost guns”, granting a request by Joe Biden’s administration to once again block a federal judge’s order that had sided with companies.

The justices lifted Fort Worth-based judge Reed O’Connor’s 14 September injunction barring enforcement of a 2022 federal regulation – a rule aimed at reining in the privately made firearms – against the two manufacturers, Blackhawk Manufacturing and Defense Distributed.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since a lot of people either didn't read or can't read. This isn't a Supreme Court ruling on the substantive issue of gun kits and their legality. This has an interlocutory posture, which is sort of like saying the higher court has weighed in on one aspect of the case (the lower court injunction) while the appeals process is still ongoing.

TL;DR - A lower court stopped enforcement of a federal regulation. The Supreme Court said it can be enforced while the underlying issue is still being litigated.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I 2nd this. This isn't major news, if you aren't really into firearms case law ignore this post exists.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Once again BIG GOVERNMENT is trying to strip us of our freedoms. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM GHOSTS NOW!?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Salt shot?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Do we have any law people actually familiar with this issue around? As a layperson, I cannot honestly tell where the court sees boundaries on second amendment stuff. Why would the gov have the authority to restrict these guns, but not others?

The 2A language seems simple to me. Once you “interpret” your way around the “well regulated militia” language, seems hard to justify any laws that restrict the ownership of anything that can be seen as armaments. I know that must be wrong but I can’t figure out why.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The length of the 2nd Amendment is insanely short and likely thought to be quite obvious to the authors. Ironically, it has likely been more debated than any other Amendment. There have even been court cases that focus on how the placement of commas impacts the meaning.

To your comment on "well regulated," the debate there has to do with how the phase has changed meaning over time; well regulated meant "well maintained" or "taken care of." A well regulated clock, for instance, would have its gears cleaned and oiled at regular intervals.

Even in the groups that still hold that interpretation debate on whether the phrase then mean well-drilled/disciplined or well-stocked with arms.

With regard to at-home kits, the general rule/understanding was you could build your own with your own tools and any materials that were only 80% or less manufactured/machined to being a completed firearm.

The debate kinda went like this: "Is a block of metal a gun?"
"Well, no..."
"So... How much work am I allowed to do to this block of metal before I get in trouble for selling it to somebody else?"
"Ionno... A lot, I guess? 80% sound good?"

So, people started selling 80% kits within the bounds of the law. They were blocks of material mostly milled with instructions, and sometimes tools, to finish the job.

The article doesn't explain why these kits in question are getting blocked. I'm suspecting too many things were sold at once as part of the kit, though. 80% kits normally don't have barrels, for instance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

englishmen had a right to bear arms, and the second amendment is just codifying that into american law too.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

TLDR: This case isn't settled this change was just a matter of if a party should have been subject to an injunction before a ruling is issued. This isn't major news, the SC isn't commenting saying it's cool or not cool to regulate X. This is them opining on a procedural mater.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also a layperson, but while the courts may have ruled against certain details of background check requirements (like whether certain kinds of restraining orders can be used to disqualify someone from buying or possessing guns) they have not ruled against background checks being required for gun sales as a concept. The entire purpose of these kits, whether the manufacturer says so or not, is to bypass background check laws by selling something that technically doesn't meet the definition of a firearm but can very easily be modified to become one.