That’s a question I raised for the panel.

If the plaintiffs had raised a Bruen challenge to the reg in addition to the facial statutory challenge, under a juridical doctrine known as the Rule of Avoidance (in short, don’t decide constitutional issues when there are other ways to reach the result sought), then the lower courts properly held “we can find for you on the APA issue, so we do not (and should not) decide the Bruen issue.” In such case, a SCOTUS reversal would send the case back down, and then the plaintiffs could say, “OK, now you have to address the Bruen issue.” And I suspect Thomas would write a dissent saying “while the Bruen issue is not before the court, here’s why on remand it’s important for the lower courts to address it.”

OTOH, if the plaintiffs’ pleadings did NOT assert a Bruen challenge and only made a facial APA challenge to the regs, then its possible that a SCOTUS reversal could mean this case is done (but such would not preclude someone else from making a Bruen challenge.

I’ll check with Cody W. (Counsel for FPC) and Josh Blackman (counsel for Defense Distributed) to see if they included a Bruen challenge in their papers.

No VPN (retired network and systems engineer ), but login requirement was removed.

Do they re-try it as an afront to 2A? IE this case is asking “did the ATF overstep their statutory authority”, not “are citizens free from government infringement [ie, shall not be infringed] to produce personally manufactured firearms”.

Turn your VPN off and it will play without the sign in requirement.

It says to sign in to YouTube to prove I’m not a bot.

You know you don’t need a YouTube account to watch the video, right?

And we got so much more with the ‘one step too many’ ruling authored by Thomas.

I guess we’ll see when we see who authors the decision next June…

No thanks. Publish elsewhere.