Looks like the bumpstock ban is about to become real

[jamil]

Every time I see people mention this, I'm reminded of an old joke...

Guy goes into a pizza parlor and orders a small pizza. Guy behind the counter asks, "Would you like that cut into 4 pieces or 8 pieces?"
Customer says, "Better just cut it into 4 pieces. I don't think I could eat 8 pieces."

Probably also an AOC joke in there somewhere.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Probably also an AOC joke in there somewhere.

 

[femurphy77]

You had to go back a week ago for that

I from the south, I can't listen as fast as some of you can talk!

 

[actaeon277]

I from the south, I can't listen as fast as some of you can talk!

I'll type slower.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

FPC: Today’s Supreme Court Denial is NOT the End of the Bump Stock Ban Challenge

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/f...uffer&utm_term=ttagfeed&utm_campaign=ttagfeed

 

[churchmouse]

FPC: Today’s Supreme Court Denial is NOT the End of the Bump Stock Ban Challenge

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/f...uffer&utm_term=ttagfeed&utm_campaign=ttagfeed

Reading that crap gives me a headache.

 

[jedi]

Reading that crap gives me a headache.

In plain english the SUPREME COURT is NOT willing to listen to the case at this time since the APPEAL COURTS, under it, has yet to hear the case. They want the case to go thru the process.

Make me wonder when if any the process is passed up and a case goes all the way to the top after trial?

 

[Beowulf]

Hooray, those Trump appointed justices bravely.... sent the case back to the lower courts for further review. That'll sure show those gun grabbers at the ATF.

They literally already identified the erroneous assumption the lower courts took. So why push it back down? The Supreme Court's job isn't to uphold the judicial bureaucracy. It's their job to determine constitutionality of laws and government actions. If they can already determine the lower courts were wrong, then fricking overturn it and move on. Justice delayed is justice denied... you know, I guess, unless the court says otherwise.

 

[T.Lex]

Reading that crap gives me a headache.

#MeToo

 

[churchmouse]

#MeToo

 

[Kutnupe14]

#MeToo

Wrongly applied.
I doubt a headache excuse stopped Harvey.

 

[ghitch75]

Wrongly applied.
I doubt a headache excuse stopped Harvey.

i'm sure it did after a few dozen actresses....

 

[jamil]

Hooray, those Trump appointed justices bravely.... sent the case back to the lower courts for further review. That'll sure show those gun grabbers at the ATF.

They literally already identified the erroneous assumption the lower courts took. So why push it back down? The Supreme Court's job isn't to uphold the judicial bureaucracy. It's their job to determine constitutionality of laws and government actions. If they can already determine the lower courts were wrong, then fricking overturn it and move on. Justice delayed is justice denied... you know, I guess, unless the court says otherwise.

Dot your i’s. Cross your t’s. And if it gets up this far, we’ll hear it. That’s what I got from Gorsuch. They didn’t just dismiss it.

 

[KLB]

Dot your i’s. Cross your t’s. And if it gets up this far, we’ll hear it. That’s what I got from Gorsuch. They didn’t just dismiss it.

Gorsuch has already shown he is a stickler about things getting done the right way.

No need to waste the courts time hearing the case yet. The lower court can still rule correctly.

 

[T.Lex]

Wrongly applied.
I doubt a headache excuse stopped Harvey.

Objection. Being forced to watch mental masturbation is close enough.

Wait.

Or was that the comedian guy?

I get all the Hollywood deviants confused.

 

[Ingomike]

Gorsuch comments were pretty good.

Today, Justice Neil Gorsuch threw a little shade at the Trump administration for unilaterally rewriting federal gun laws. "The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite. The law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," Gorsuch wrote. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous….And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"


https://reason.com/2020/03/02/gorsu...eral-gun-laws-without-congressional-approval/

 

[protias]

Gorsuch comments were pretty good.

Today, Justice Neil Gorsuch threw a little shade at the Trump administration for unilaterally rewriting federal gun laws. "The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as 'machineguns.' Now it says the opposite. The law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it," Gorsuch wrote. "How, in all of this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous….And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?"


https://reason.com/2020/03/02/gorsu...eral-gun-laws-without-congressional-approval/

Now if we could just get the NFA removed...

 

[jamil]

Gorsuch has already shown he is a stickler about things getting done the right way.

No need to waste the courts time hearing the case yet. The lower court can still rule correctly.

I think also Gorsuch is sending a message to lower courts. But, activists will use whatever platform they have to get their version of justice.

 

[Beowulf]

Dot your i’s. Cross your t’s. And if it gets up this far, we’ll hear it. That’s what I got from Gorsuch. They didn’t just dismiss it.

And yet, he said this:

"The law before us carries the possibility of criminal sanctions," Gorsuch wrote. "Before courts may send people to prison, we owe them an independent determination that the law actually forbids their conduct. A 'reasonable' prosecutor's say-so is cold comfort in comparison."

Cool. Then why send it back down? People are already facing lost of private property with no compensation, as well as the thread of a felony charges. Why wait? Get in there and shred that ruling now. The best that can happen by sending it back down is that another appeals court rules differently and then they have a split precedent.

 

[KLB]

And yet, he said this:

"The law before us carries the possibility of criminal sanctions," Gorsuch wrote. "Before courts may send people to prison, we owe them an independent determination that the law actually forbids their conduct. A 'reasonable' prosecutor's say-so is cold comfort in comparison."

Cool. Then why send it back down? People are already facing lost of private property with no compensation, as well as the thread of a felony charges. Why wait? Get in there and shred that ruling now. The best that can happen by sending it back down is that another appeals court rules differently and then they have a split precedent.

Because they have a proper way of doing things in the courts. Let it get there the proper way if need be and let it get struck down. Chevron is getting challenged a lot, and hopefully the USSC will gut that decision.