Again, Taylor had nothing to do with the decision to grant cert in VanderStok. Timing is purely coincidental.

You *might* see a mention of the Taylor judge’s alleged statement (apparently made in a chambers conference with counsel, so might not even be on the record) in a Thomas or Alito concurrence in Rahimi, in terms of calling out judges who are thumbing their noses at Bruen, but that about it for now.

(1) Briefing will be over the summer. Argument in the Fall Term. Decision sometime next year.
(2) ***VanderStok is not a 2A case.**** It will not address whether home fabrication of firearms or legal serialization requirements are constitutional or not. Like Cargill (bump stock case), VanderStok involves whether the AFT’s regulations are proper under the ‘68 GCA and APA.

That guy is just wrong. Case will be argued in the Fall term.

“…the trial judge literally said “you can’t argue the Second Amendment; this is New York.””

Ho-lee crap.

Bald-faced contempt of ‘Bruen’ and the SCotUS may have been the motivating factor?

*UPDATE*

This Vanderstock ‘Frames and Receivers’ SCotUS case will be heard and decided by the summer court recess :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnrzsZuDe6I

VanderStok has been working its way through the pipeline for some time now. Given that there were four votes to deny a stay pending appeal, it actually took longer for cert to get granted than I would have thought.

Unlikely. VanderStok isn’t a 2A case — it’s whether the “frame or receiver” regs are consistent with the ‘68 GCA and properly promulgated under the APA. Taylor is a NY state law case, where they tried to argue Bruen nuked the Ny law, but the trial judge literally said “you can’t argue the Second Amendment; this is New York.”

“CA is already taking strides in criminalizing mere possession of a receiver that isn’t serialized.”

Hopefully, this decision settles once and for all home built firearms are legal and expressly constitutional.

I suppose we’ll know a bit more as the ‘Friends of the Court’ briefs get published, and when oral arguments happen.

I really hope LKB could clarify what this is, and isn’t…

CA is already taking strides in criminalizing mere possession of a receiver that isn’t serialized. Marking for a completed lower (milled & drilled) was required a few years ago, and now we’re being required to mark even unfinished ones that are still NIB and incapable of even being used as a firearm. That brings into question all the people who purchased some extra frames at some point and have them (NIB, unfinished) in the back of the safe somewhere. Automatically a criminal now, despite no crime committed? And the AFT wants to impose the same absurd stance on a national level?

Who in their right mind actually wants to sign up to be an AFT/FBI/DHS agent nowadays? They spend more time looking for ways to go after Mr & Mrs American Citizen than going after…I dunno…people committing actual crimes.

“Jailed For Assembling A Frame Or Receiver? The Case Of Dexter Taylor”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pCV0qCfw3s