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

[Glocktogo]

The legal definition of what constitutes a machinegun in federal law is irrefutable. Redefining what constitutes a machinegun in direct contravention of federal law, is unconstitutional. It usurps powers delegated to Congress by the Executive branch.

If the legal challenge fails, it's likely due to flaws in the challenge itself. Fix it and refile it. It really is that simple.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

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.

No rational for not taking up the case? Just a no? Stories like this are designed to make people angry. There have been some major wins for the 2A recently. For example, we are not taking up this case because of... Reporter is trying to stir the pot.

 

[Judi]

Justice Thomas is the only one holding it together since they killed A. S.

Once Justice Thomas dies.....


With affirmative action now seated proudly....


No telling when the Jerry Springer fist-a-cuffs start ...when she bees Dissed..

 

[Glocktogo]

No rational for not taking up the case? Just a no? Stories like this are designed to make people angry. There have been some major wins for the 2A recently. For example, we are not taking up this case because of... Reporter is trying to stir the pot.

I read on another forum that the lower court has to re-examine the case based on the Bruen and EPA SCOTUS decisions, which weren’t in play when the case was originally ruled on?

If that’s the case, the lower court is basically being told to fix their own legally flawed ruling?

 

[joegrizzy]

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.

but isn't every product manufactured to "work around" existing laws? like....literally everything?

 

[kingfish]

I read on another forum that the lower court has to re-examine the case based on the Bruen and EPA SCOTUS decisions, which weren’t in play when the case was originally ruled on?

If that’s the case, the lower court is basically being told to fix their own legally flawed ruling?

This is an explanation that makes sense to me. Bruen v EPA is a precedence that SCOTUS has set and now all lower courts should base rulings on. Unfortunately this will take some more time and possessors of said bump stocks are still hanging in limbo.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

I read on another forum that the lower court has to re-examine the case based on the Bruen and EPA SCOTUS decisions, which weren’t in play when the case was originally ruled on?

If that’s the case, the lower court is basically being told to fix their own legally flawed ruling?

Exactly, what is more disturbing is this is proof that they are (Yahoo) is purposely trying to stoke the fires of discontent. We (Right and Left) are being pushed towards a fight. They do this with abortion too, the Supreme court did not just wake up one day and say "Let's Re Examine Roe Versus Wade that court may have gotten it wrong." Roe Versus wade was overturned with a new decision on a new case. Look what the news has done, they make it look like the Supreme Court is a rogue arm of the right. There should not be right or left justices, there should be justices that examine objectively the law and come up with the correct legal argument in relation to the Constitution, parties and politics aside.

 

[AKguy1985]

The whole bump stock ban is ridiculous to begin with. I don't need a bump stock to bump fire.

 

[OKNewshawk]

I don't look at it as a win for the anti-gunners. I think that SCOTUS is just waiting for a better case to rule on. There were many challenges to New York's draconian gun restrictions but the justices waited until the Bruen case came up. They saw that as their best chance to rule on the matter. I wonder if they have their eyes on one of the cases on the frame/receiver issue or the AR pistol issue. That ruling would have a greater impact.

 

[Perplexed]

There should not be right or left justices, there should be justices that examine objectively the law and come up with the correct legal argument in relation to the Constitution, parties and politics aside.

The issue here is that correct and objective examination of the law tends to be conservative and strict, whereas a liberal Justice might tend to apply a looser and more “interest-balanced” approach to the law.