A Day In The Life Of A Talk Radio Blogger - Online Magazine: November 2023

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Judge John Milton Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in Williams v. Garland, which challenged the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights due to a single misdemeanor conviction for a crime that did not involve violence, physical harm, or a firearm. The opinion can be viewed below.

Following a 2005 trial, Edward Williams was convicted of driving under the influence, in violation of Pennsylvania law. Because he had a previous DUI non-conviction in 2001 that was later expunged, the 2005 conviction qualified as a first-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. However, he was never imprisoned, and was instead placed under house arrest for 90 days, ordered to pay costs, a fine of $1,500, and to complete any recommended drug and alcohol treatment under the mandatory minimum sentence.

“The Government points to several regulations permitting the disarmament of drunk or intoxicated persons,” wrote Judge Younge in his opinion. “None of these regulations allude to disarmament lasting beyond the individual’s state of intoxication, and none provided for permanent disarmament, as Section 922(g)(1) does. Certainly, this Court agrees that using a firearm while intoxicated is dangerous, but historical regulations which momentarily disarmed certain individuals for temporary mental incapacity cannot be considered similar to the sanction of permanent disarmament for past DUI convictions.”
“We are very pleased with the district court’s decision,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “Mr. Williams is a peaceable person who should have never been disarmed. The court correctly ruled that his Second Amendment rights should be restored.”

FPC is especially grateful for the excellent work of attorney Joshua Prince on this case.

Click the link to read the whole article: Judge Rules For Plaintiff

MITE Tactical Teleprinter - military digital communications from 1958 - Curious Marc

80 Percent Arms Statement on ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule – UPDATE - Ammoland.com

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in VanDerStok v. Garland, overturning the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule and marking another significant victory for 80 Percent Arms.

The court criticized the ATF for overstepping its regulatory authority, effectively accusing it of rewriting the law without proper legal basis. The court creatively used the “cakes that look like food” internet trend as an analogy to illustrate its point on gun regulation by drawing a parallel between a cake that looks like a hamburger, or like a gun, is not a hamburger or a gun. This comparison highlighted the ATF’s flawed approach, where regulations were applied not just to genuine frames and receivers, but also to items that merely resembled them.

Judge Oldham wrote an opinion supplementing the majority’s findings in order to explore additional problems with the Final Rule, where he says “The Final Rule is limitless… The GCA allows none of this.” Judge Kurt Engelhardt, also supporting the majority opinion stated, “The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy.” He further clarified that the expansion of firearm regulation and the criminalization of actions that were previously legal are not sanctioned by Congress, rendering the proposed rule an unlawful agency action that goes against legislative intent.

The court firmly concludes that until Congress modifies the Gun Control Act, the ATF must adhere to the existing statutory limits. The Final Rule, according to the court, crosses those boundaries, resulting in the ATF essentially rewriting the law, a move that is not permissible, particularly when it leads to the broad imposition of criminal liability without legislative input.

Click the link to read the whole article: Statement on ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule