New Orleans Municipal Code § 54-1 defines a stun gun or a Taser as a destructive device. “The term ‘destructive devi...
Today we filed a Taser challenge against the City of New Orleans
November 17, 2016
Today, New Jersey filed this letter with the Court, requesting that "... the Court schedule an in-person conference in the hopes of resolving this cas...
New Jersey requests "in-person" settlement conference in Taser case
November 16, 2016
Today, we received the following production in the NFATCA FOIA filed on behalf of Mr. Savage. For ease of reviewing, we have broken it into two separ...
ATF Delivers Documents in NFATCA FOIA Case
November 22, 2016
Can the "Acting" Attorney General enact new regulations?
December 9, 2018
A thought crossed my mind after reading a few lawsuits brought by parties alleging Acting Attorney General Whitaker is not the proper person to be the Attorney General under the law. In fact, a few senators filed an action in DC District Court, Blumenthal, et al. v. Whitaker, et al (1:18-cv-02664) alleging, among other things, that Whitaker cannot be the Attorney General and that Rod Rosentein should automatically assume the title until the President appoints, with the advice and consent of the senate, a new Attorney General.
What happens, then, if the new bump stock rule is "final ruled" with Acting Attorney General Whitaker's signature, and then his appointment is later to be found invalid/unlawful? Does this bump stock rule (and more broadly, any act he would have taken as Acting Attorney General) become void? I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but I am following both the Supreme Court case and the DC District case cited earlier very closely. Stay tuned for further updates.