This legislation has enormous potential given what it inherently creates on multiple levels. It's to be expected fed will fight this tooth and nail. If it doesn't go to Scotus I would be surprised, and if / when it goes that far and Scotus accepts the case rather than dodging it or attempting to stop it via rejecting it, I would be extremely surprised.ELB wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:40 amMore accurately perhaps, the Legislature has chosen to force the issue. They have given the state attorney general a hook to be able to employ the resources of the state. Normally if you get busted for an unregistered suppressor, you cannot call on the states attorney general to be your defense lawyer and argue anything at all. Now you can employ the AG in advance and avoid getting busted. As long as you don’t actually build the suppressor without a tax stamp.
This will be tough sledding no doubt, I’m sure the feds will First oppose this on procedural grounds, Arguing that it’s improper for the state attorney general to seek a judgment on behalf of an individual or somesuch. Or that he doesn’t have a standing because he’s not the one trying to build a suppressor, things of that nature. It’s possible that that entire line of argument will have to be argued up to the Scotus and back before the actual substance of the case, the declaratory judgment, can be argued. That could be measured in years.
But it certainly has the potential to be a much bigger deal than Constitutional carry. Constitutional carry is not a precedent setting event, there’s already 20 states that do it. Upending The overreach of the commerce clause interpretation, that is HUGE, Affects the entire country, and affects all kinds of regulatory power.
The fact that the state AG is directly involved with this and puts state resources into it is a game-changer.
I'm not an attorney so my subsequent thoughts could be completely wrong, as for arguing the AG has no standing I suspect is a hollow argument. Why?
His job is to enforce the law, in this instance it is the commercial commerce clause which is really the issue, and it being the law then it's his job to enforce it properly. Which has not been done owing to the damnable court rulings in the past.
So I would say he does have standing owing to the law being improperly applied and it being his duty to either apply the law or see that it is properly applied.
I agree this is going to be a long haul in the courts. If fed loses this they lose an enormous amount of power over the states and by default over the public.