Seventh Circuit rules against plaintiff who had an unregistered drop-in auto sear since 1979 and wan

[Aim1]

Onward for SCOTUS!


We'll see if he pursues this further.




https://t.co/WBnpWFhcZw https://t.co/0zFGe3zF1U
(https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status/1619105799363510272?t=OlUOBcw29uadL0mtg3d--w&s=03)

 

[BushMaster-15]

Passing further legislation in 2014 ,still doesn't make possessing a 1979 Auto Sear criminal ,as it was exempted originally by legislation Prior to Nov. 1 St. 1981 . With No Government means or need of registering said device at the time , burden falls upon ATF in failing to address such items at the time and sending due notification as in public postings . So a Tax stamp from 2014- ?. Item can't legally be considered contraband , IMO .

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Item can't legally be considered contraband , IMO .

Except the Seventh Circuit disagrees, and its opinion trumps yours. We'll need to see how this develops; but unless the Supreme Court addresses the issue, it looks like this will be the law in the Seveth Circuit.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Except the Seventh Circuit disagrees, and its opinion trumps yours. We'll need to see how this develops; but unless the Supreme Court addresses the issue, it looks like this will be the law in the Seveth Circuit.

The plaintiff DIDN'T lose ,he simply DIDN'T state what he wanted as in #22-1165 failed to state on which relief may be granted , NOT on Merit .
One must carefully word requests when addressing higher courts and be prepared to ask for a " Specific " judgement upon granting .

I've been wrong before and will be again but it isn't over until the fat lady sings .

 

[Frank Ettin]

The plaintiff DIDN'T lose ,he simply DIDN'T state what he wanted as in #22-1165 failed to state on which relief may be granted , NOT on Merit .....

I'm sorry, but that's not exactly what that means here. But this gives me a chance to further emphasize the importance of reading the actual opinion.

Essentially, the court said that Roe had no claim because he had no remedy. There was no way he could now make his possession of the auto sear legal. See, Roe v. Dettelback (No. 22-1165, Seventh Circuit, 2023) --

1. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Roe's case "with prejudice", i. e., he can't change something and try again. Roe, slip op at 2:
   

   ..he failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). We have modified the judgment to be one with prejudice,...

   
   So there's no way Roe can state a claim on which relief may be granted.
   
   
2. slip op at 12:
   

   ... We accept that Roe lawfully purchased his auto sear in 1979 and that he genuinely believed he did not have to register it after Ruling 81-4 went into effect. But these facts do not entitle Roe to relief. Ruling 81-4 still requires owners of pre1981 auto sears to register those parts. Roe provides no basis for the ATF to treat his auto sear as anything other than contraband. Roe’s misinterpretation of Ruling 81-4 and his failure to recall that he owned the auto sear do not support relief. ...

   
   
3. slip op at 13:
   

   ...Roe has been required to register his auto sear since 1981 and there is no intervening ATF decision that would provide him with a foothold for relief...

Essentially, a dismissal of a suit with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted means the plaintiff lost as a matter of law.

 

[Riomouse911]

I'm sorry, but that's not exactly what that means here. But this gives me a chance to further emphasize the importance of reading the actual opinion.

Essentially, the court said that Roe had no claim because he had no remedy. There was no way he could now make his possession of the auto sear legal. See, Roe v. Dettelback (No. 22-1165, Seventh Circuit, 2023) --

1. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Roe's case "with prejudice", i. e., he can't change something and try again. Roe, slip op at 2:
   
   ​
   
   So there's no way Roe can state a claim on which relief may be granted.
   
   
2. slip op at 12:
   
   ​
   
   
3. slip op at 13:
   
   ​

Essentially, a dismissal of a suit with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted means the plaintiff lost as a matter of law.

#3 you state above is his real case-killer. He bought it before registration was required, he didn’t register it 41 + years ago when that was required, now after he gets in trouble for not registering the sear when he should have he wants to keep it.

I agree, this case is done.

Stay safe.

 

[BushMaster-15]

Funny he had been required to register since 1981 when NO provision was provided ?, by what I read as to be an exemption until 1986 when wording changed . Did I also read that incorrectly ?

.. We accept that Roe lawfully purchased his auto sear in 1979 and that he genuinely believed he did not have to register it after Ruling 81-4 went into effect. But these facts do not entitle Roe to relief. Ruling 81-4 still requires owners of pre1981 auto sears to register those parts. Roe provides no basis for the ATF to treat his auto sear as anything other than contraband. Roe’s misinterpretation of Ruling 81-4 and his failure to recall that he owned the auto sear do not support relief. ...

Wasn't that ruling put into effect in 1986 ?

 

[Will Munny]

There is no point trying to assign rationality to this or any other court decisions. The court just decides on what it will do and makes up justifications to meet that end. The powers that be are very uncomfortable with the idea of the plebeians owning full auto weapons, so the courts will be made to rule accordingly.