Joined
·
5,880 Posts
There is a limited amount of time in each term, and they probably felt there were more important cases to decide.
SCOTUS refuses to hear cases about bump stocks
Well that sucks.
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
BREAKING: Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Two Bump Stock Cases, Leaves Ban in Place - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ On the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, the Court announced this morning that it has denied cert in two cases challenging the ATF’s ban on bump stocks under the Trump administration. The cases challenged the ATF’s authority to reclassify...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Didn't read the whole article, but if I remember correctly, the bump-stock ban was due to an EO, which Trump signed. Next president can choose to keep the EO in place or let it 'expire', if that is the correct term for when an EO is no longer active.
Agreed.
Joined
·
2,907 Posts
IMHO bump stocks are like fireworks. the fact that you want them indicates you are too immature to have them. like giving an 18 year old a bottle of tequila and a corvette.
Or ... they are too busy signing phony FISA warrants.
Joined
·
22,691 Posts
The less than supreme court - owned by china and the NWO. Remember they let Obumma care be forced on us.
Joined
·
9,542 Posts
It wasn't an EO. Trump issued a memorandum to the ATF and requested that they look into it. The ATF decided to treat bump stocks like the selector switches for Glocks.
Technically, bump stocks are not banned. Practically speaking, they are. If you could find a bump stock manufactured before 1986, you could register it. Lots of luck with that one.
Bump Stock Ban [Overturned? 2021 Update]
Given that it is wording in a regulation, any future head of the ATF should be able to overturn it.
Joined
·
9,542 Posts
The issue before the SCOTUS regarding Obamacare was not whether or not it was legal, as many people believe. The issue was the penalty it imposed on people who did not want to buy health insurance. At first, it looked like the SCOTUS was going to overturn the penalty provision. John Roberts was the tie-breaker. He decided the penalty was really a tax, even though Obama consistently claimed it was not a tax and the lawsuit did not claim it was a tax. Because Congress has the authority to impose taxes, Roberts let it stand. If Roberts had decided against the penalty, it would not have cancelled ObamaCare.
Joined
·
20,449 Posts
Many applications are not granted certiorari, for many, many reasons. The mere volume of applications make it imperative that the court remain selective upon matters.
Before Bruen, many 2A related applications were denied certiorari too. The reasons for such are only really known to the SCOTUS Justices, but it is reasonable to speculate that the matter didn't meet a compelling, constitutional threshold for the court to grant said certiorari.
Before Bruen, many 2A related applications were denied certiorari too. The reasons for such are only really known to the SCOTUS Justices, but it is reasonable to speculate that the matter didn't meet a compelling, constitutional threshold for the court to grant said certiorari.
I've never used or wanted to own a bumpstock but I'm curious. What universal, inviolable law says that such ownership is immature?
How is ownership of a bumpstock inherently dangerous?
Joined
·
2,907 Posts
if you really need help with this, firearm ownership is not for you
you are responsible for every round you send downrange
automatic weapons are inherently difficult to control
you can't see downrange, or beyond the target, looking through the sights, when your firearm is jiggling like an episode of Charlies Angels at 8X speed
ergo, if you hit something best left unhit, you got troubles way out of proportion to whatever thrills you got from that bump stock
opposing counsel can rightly and correctly use the words irresponsible and unnecessary. your counsel will insist on being paid cash in advance.
it serves no purpose, it solves no problem, there is no conceivable responsible use for it, and it brings the possibility of liability.
like my flight instructor was fond of saying: you go ahead. I'll watch.
you are responsible for every round you send downrange
automatic weapons are inherently difficult to control
you can't see downrange, or beyond the target, looking through the sights, when your firearm is jiggling like an episode of Charlies Angels at 8X speed
ergo, if you hit something best left unhit, you got troubles way out of proportion to whatever thrills you got from that bump stock
opposing counsel can rightly and correctly use the words irresponsible and unnecessary. your counsel will insist on being paid cash in advance.
it serves no purpose, it solves no problem, there is no conceivable responsible use for it, and it brings the possibility of liability.
like my flight instructor was fond of saying: you go ahead. I'll watch.
Joined
·
1,368 Posts
As they say, need or purpose have nothing to do with the 2A because it's a civil ****ing right that "shall not be infringed".
Joined
·
2,502 Posts
Ha. Then a lot of people will have to register their belt loops and thumbs.
Both eyes open and watch rounds impact and adjust. Your statement is such a fudd statement. No one needs a semi auto shotgun a double barrel is fine. No one needs a semiauto pistol. A revolver is fine. No one needs a cross bow. A long bow is fine.
Joined
·
9,445 Posts
My targets disagree with your statements. Full auto fire is easily controlled by anyone with a modicum of skill and practice.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
