In other *Breaking* court news, Aug 6, 2024 is the trial date for Alec Baldwin, the POS literal lady-killer, according to Andrew Branca, firearm attorney on his YouTube channel covering the ‘Rust’ trial for the armorer…

My guess would be that each would have to be challenged as being counter to the new ruling, just like any other ruling. Bruen didn’t eliminate NFA, GCA, or any other gun control law – they have to be challenged. That takes time and money.
But, it’s a foot in the door, another nail in the coffin for Chevron Deference, assuming SCOTUS rules in favor of Mr. Cargill. The problem the ATF has (IMHO) is how they changed their stance over time. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law, if a regulatory agency can effectively alter the scope of a law by fiat, the citizen is harmed. Note, Chevron was also a civil suit, whereas NFA violations (possessions of unregistered MGs) are a felony.

The arguments were scheduled for the 28 Feb 2024 which is Wednesday. According to > https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/>

“SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, February 28, 2024”

If you will be “listening to the arguments on Thursday” you will have missed it.

No, the jury did not find that “LaPierre and former treasure and CFO Wilson “Woody” Philips were both guilty of improperly spending millions in NRA funds”.

This was a civil case. They were found ‘liable’.

In Letitia James press release she even says it with “Following the jury determination of liability…”

Guilty refers to being responsible for committing an offense, while liable means being legally responsible for something such as a debt or obligation.

The burden of proof is higher for guilty than for liable. For ‘guilty’ there is a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, while liable only requires a preponderance of the evidence.

If there had been enough evidence of a offense for ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ this would have been a criminal trial and it wasn’t.

So this was in effect an expensive cost to tax payers, more than $33,000,000.00 expended by the state, to basically tell LaPierre (and the others) ‘ya gotta pay the money back’ just like a civil case against anyone that would, for example, be told by a liability judgement they need to pay back a loan they failed to pay and happens hundreds of times in court around the country every week.

If the SCotUS rules (as we hope) that government regulatory agencies can’t create law out of thin air to please their political masters, and shuts down their ability to do so in the future, I have a question for the SNW legal corps-

What about their past decrees, like the one that arbitrarily declared the consumable part of a registered suppressor ‘wipe’ can to be suppressor parts all on their own, keeping owners of those registered devices from making their own replacements?

How retroactive will that ruling be, if at all? Inquiring minds would like to know…