I have to admit I am a little surprised by this decision SCOTUS UPHOLDS BUMP STOCK BAN

[kingfish]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to ban on gun 'bump stocks'

The U.S. Supreme Court, which expanded gun rights in a major decision in June, on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a federal ban on devices called "bump stocks" that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire like a machine gun - a firearms control measure prompted by a 2017 Las Vegas mass...

news.yahoo.com

I was expecting the SC to continue restricting alphabet agencies abilities from making up regulations and turn that process back over to the legislative branch. I don't know if there is an opinion written that would explain their reasoning or if they simply refused to hear the appeal. Looks like the bump stock ban is here to stay.

 

[RickN]

I never expe3cted that.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Why would they reverse it. They don't care about us. They care about control.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

I am disappointed in the decision to not hear the case. These out of control federal bureaucrats need to be remonded that they DO NOT make law. Very dissapointing.

 

[TedKennedy]

Too bad Biden allowed this to happen. Oh wait, it wasn't Biden.

 

[kingfish]

ATF will be emboldened by this. Pistol braces and binary triggers will be next.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Seldom do actions to "work around" a law last very long, but I don't believe the issue is dead. Rewrite the appeal, with more facts and start the process over. The original action was brought about by a pretty visible and serious event, and public opinion was way over the top, without any reasonable response from our side as to why the stocks should be allowed.

 

[joegrizzy]

what's funny is one of the core philosophies of what you guys call "conspiracy" is to not look at events themselves as much as the events that arise only because of the initial event.

there is officially absolutely nothing regarding the vegas shooting (a motive, a reason, a manifesto, an affiliation, etc etc) except this law on bumpstocks. that's it.

"conspiracy" tho. don't be crazy like me. i'm sure it's just another coincidence.

 

[kingfish]

Seldom do actions to "work around" a law last very long, but I don't believe the issue is dead. Rewrite the appeal, with more facts and start the process over. The original action was brought about by a pretty visible and serious event, and public opinion was way over the top, without any reasonable response from our side as to why the stocks should be allowed.

I'm not a lawyer of legal scholar, but it seems to me that rather than going at this in a piecemeal manor of arguing a case about bump stocks or the accessory de jour, a case need to be brought to the courts that agencies like the BATFE and others are operating outside their legislative mandate by creating new laws rather than just enforcing those set forth by Congress. It's no different that a police dept. making up laws they want to enforce without being voted on by the elected members of the city council.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

I like that approach. Taking bump stocks by themselves seems to be a losing case since the obvious creation was solely to work around existing laws.