Supreme Court vacates federal court order against Biden's ghost gun rule

  • 📰 dcexaminer
  • ⏱ Reading Time:
  • 68 sec. here
  • 3 min. at publisher
  • 📊 Quality Score:
  • News: 31%
  • Publisher: 94%

Law Law Headlines News

Law Law Latest News,Law Law Headlines

Kaelan Deese is a Supreme Court reporter for the Washington Examiner covering the latest happenings at the nation's highest court and the legal issues surrounding Second Amendment rights, abortion, and religious liberties. He previously wrote breaking news as a fellow for the Hill during the 2020 election cycle.

The Supreme Court on Monday vacated a lower court order and allowed the Biden administration's ghost gun regulations to take effect.

The request was initially filed to Justice Samuel Alito and referred to the full court, according to an order on Monday vacating a Texas-based federal judge's ruling against President Joe Biden's ghost gun rules.On Oct. 6, Alito overruled the judge's decision against such rules. He issued an order giving ghost gun manufacturers until Wednesday to provide a better reason as to why they should not have their guns regulated the same way as anyone else.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule requires creators or sellers of the kits to obtain a special license, mark products with traceable serial numbers, and conduct background checks while maintaining records. The rule attracted criticism from several pro-gun advocates and manufacturers who say the reclassification of parts kits as firearms is unconstitutional.

Gun rights groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation Inc., Polymer80 Inc., and Not An LLC, sued to block the rule days after it took effect in August 2022. Such groups argued they would be driven out of business by the ATF rule if it was enforced against them.Alito issued the order after the Justice Department accused lower courts of violating the Supreme Court decision in August that allowed the ATF to enforce the new ghost gun rules while the issue was pending in lawsuits.

 

Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be published after being reviewed.
Please try again later.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:

 /  🏆 6. in LAW

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Supreme Court leaves in place court victory for PETA over North Carolina ag-gag lawThe Supreme Court has rejected North Carolina’s appeal in a dispute with animal rights groups over a law aimed at preventing undercover employees at farms and other workplaces from taking documents or recording video
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »

Supreme Court again allows enforcement of Biden ghost guns regulationLawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »

Supreme Court again leaves Biden administration’s ghost gun rules in placeWhile legal battles continue, new federal rules requiring licensing and record-keeping for ghost guns will stay in place.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

US Supreme Court blocks judge's order allowing 'ghost gun' salesThe U.S. 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 President Joe Biden's administration to once again block a federal judge's order that had sided with companies.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »

On this day in history, October 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas is confirmed to US Supreme CourtOn this day in history, Oct. 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas received a Senate vote of 52-48 confirming him to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, he is the longest serving Supreme Court justice.
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »

A Supreme Court Dispute Over a $15,000 IRS BillCharles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles...
Source: NEWSMAX - 🏆 16. / 71 Read more »