I agree with the "never give up" mentality on this. But at the same time, the lack of a broad stay/injunction in this does not bode well. Sure, there's a ton of litigation that needs to happen, but this first part really could not have gone worse for bumpstock owners, and gun enthusiasts generally.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real
- Thread starter Hotrod29
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I agree with the "never give up" mentality on this. But at the same time, the lack of a broad stay/injunction in this does not bode well. Sure, there's a ton of litigation that needs to happen, but this first part really could not have gone worse for bumpstock owners, and gun enthusiasts generally.
Well we are talking about guns here. If we were talking about chicks with dicks using a womens bathroom a stay would have been issued immediately
Is this yet another request to SCOTUS for a stay?
https://twitter.com/erichmpratt/status/1110988100640088064?s=21
https://twitter.com/erichmpratt/status/1110988100640088064?s=21
Interestingly, in trying to figure out what cases SCOTUS denied a stay in, I saw this description of another agency-deference case.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/...ded-on-agency-deference-doctrine/#more-284237
It is more disappointing that the court did not entertain a stay, at least pending resolution of that case, since it appears to be at least tangentially related.
I believe the GOA request for a stays is "new" in the Supreme Court and has not been heard yet. I'm not really sure which of the other 2 cases were denied, but it kinda doesn't matter.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/...ded-on-agency-deference-doctrine/#more-284237
It is more disappointing that the court did not entertain a stay, at least pending resolution of that case, since it appears to be at least tangentially related.
I believe the GOA request for a stays is "new" in the Supreme Court and has not been heard yet. I'm not really sure which of the other 2 cases were denied, but it kinda doesn't matter.
non-elected govt agency bans legally owned property protected by constitution. Court wont issue a stay until litigation goes through. everyone should be against this. if this case loses, they'll ban triggers, stocks, whatever they want. and the left is out for blood against the people who elected trump.
The left? This nonsense is 100% coming FROM TRUMP. The ATF under Obama approved the bump stocks. We don't just have to worry about the left and the Democrats, we have to worry about the Republicans. It seems like they can all agree on screwing over our civil liberties. Hooray for bipartisanship.
The left? This nonsense is 100% coming FROM TRUMP. The ATF under Obama approved the bump stocks. We don't just have to worry about the left and the Democrats, we have to worry about the Republicans. It seems like they can all agree on screwing over our civil liberties. Hooray for bipartisanship.
Indeed.
As much as Lindsey Graham is. He's really pushing the federal red-flag law.
What fierce resistance? The ban is rather popular, even with gun owners.
I don't support the ban, I think it's silly but I just don't see how these trinkets are protected by the Constitution. I have a very pragmatic outlook on the world and I just don't see the legal precedents that support this argument.
Not a country club, cocktail party circuit, muh principles kind - those are RealRepublicans©. The last one to slither out forgot to lock the door, so the MAGAs took over
"Put it on the camp. It's their camp now"
I'm kind of in an overlapping version of this position. On principle, I don't think the government has or should have the right to tell you what accessories you can place on your firearm, with the exception of after market items that would truly move it into an NFA classification (such as SBR or full auto conversion)
But I'm with you on the silly trinket thing, and I'm pissed that I'm placed in the position of defending something so stupid and I just can't understand how we got here. What underpins the desire for unaimed, inaccurate rapid fire?
God knows, if we're willing to allow people to buy Kimbers, we can't complain about the tendency to jam - but why, short of a Pickett's Charge scenario, do people think this is in any way useful. Even if you're making a stand against the government coming to confiscate your weapons, I just don't see them charging you en masse and eschewing the use of cover. I really don't even understand the utility of two-stage triggers, but at least that would be aimed fire
How are they prohibited by the Constitution?
Is that an argument that could be used in court? Lots of things/acts are prohibited that are not in the Constitution that no one takes issue with.
Examples? If a bump stock is banned, what next? A pistol grip? 223 ammo? A scope? The color black? The list goes on.
Site Supporter
Members online
- JR50
- semperfi211
- Zeb
- ssgjason
- OneBadV8
- AndyF
- SEIndSAM
- phylodog
- Keith_Indy
- jamil
- Bugzilla
- 2roosters
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- Itchytriggerfinger
- cakndsn
- BigBoxaJunk
- fender
- chuckp
- edwea
- jspy5
- Larry!!!
- Leo
- DoggyDaddy
- Lifeform50
- m4_dave
- Edged Tools
- VostocK
- lovemachine
- Peacekeeper3073
- TheSpookyCat
- Nacho Man
- shotgun131313
- JAL
- BIGE7.62
- bullet
- Waterboy
- Kernal1984
- HKFaninCarmel
- Lirpa8mm
- BoilerWes
- MDpolo
- Jim5528
- boosteds13cc
- fireball168
- Demoderb1989
- matt4shadow
- dung
- Kinkopet33
- samtoast
- brizzad