Eddie_Valiant
NES Member
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Not a dupe. The link you provided was the filing of the appeal. The video from Guns n Gadgets is the ruling. Big difference.Dupe
5th circuit court of appeals accepts appeal of bumpstock ban en banc (update ban struck down, post 26)
The 3 judge panel on the 5th circuit upheld the district court ruling saying the bumpstock ban was legal. The 3 judge panel was 1 Clinton judge, 2 Obama The en banc panel will be all active judges in the 5th, so 12 GOP nominated and 5 democrat nominated. The 5th circuit is the most...www.northeastshooters.com
Spot on. The various Federal departments - EPA, ATF, and others - have never had Constitutional permission to create law. For better or worse, that is still the domain of the Congress. This SCOTUS has recognized this and we can hope FJB doesn't get an opportunity to stack the Court with libs that hate the Constitution.This is really good to see. This is setting a precedent that the ATF can’t make their own laws, need to follow the laws that are in the books, and have to follow procedure if they want something changed.
This plus Bruen are definitely steps in the right direction. Hopefully, this doesn’t get appealed or if it does it’s shot down.
Federal court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban
A court has ruled against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' ban on bump stocks, finding the agency acted without congressional authorization.www.foxnews.com
What are bump stocks? How they work and why Trump wants them banned
President Trump has confirmed the Justice Department is forging ahead with his plan to ban rapid-fire bump stocks.www.foxnews.com
Sure it is. They're both the ongoing conversation about the same case. Keeping them together improves both.Not a dupe. The link you provided was the filing of the appeal. The video from Guns n Gadgets is the ruling. Big difference.
In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don’t fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.
Aka the lawmaker (govt) must PROVE that the law makes a normal behavior into a criminal behavior.From the dissent. Wow. Just wow.
Maybe they will do a "sell back" to the owners?so is the state paying for peoples destroyed property or nah?
so is the state paying for peoples destroyed property or nah?
The ATF essentially created new law by executive fiat. What that has to do with government proving a defendant's conduct is unambiguously illegal is not at all evident to me. Maybe someone with more time and legal experience than me can research and explain what this statement of dissent actually has to do with the case. It sure sounds to me like a typical illogical moonbat red-herring non-sequitur hysterical fear-mongering claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.From the dissent. Wow. Just wow.
In a dissent, Judge Stephen Higginson disagreed that bump stocks don’t fall under the federal definition of machine guns. And he wrote that the majority’s interpretation of the lenity principle was too broad. “Under the majority’s rule, the defendant wins by default whenever the government fails to prove that a statute unambiguously criminalizes the defendant’s conduct,” Higginson wrote.
MA passed their own law on bump stocks, ATF need not applyso is the state paying for peoples destroyed property or nah?
The case exists because the government made a law and wanted to punish defendants for breaking it. His argument is basically that it's not fair to the government that the prosecution must prove the elements of the case.The ATF essentially created new law by executive fiat. What that has to do with government proving a defendant's conduct is unambiguously illegal is not at all evident to me. Maybe someone with more time and legal experience than me can research and explain what this statement of dissent actually has to do with the case. It sure sounds to me like a typical illogical moonbat red-herring non-sequitur hysterical fear-mongering claim that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
I’d get one just because I can now (except I’m in ma)Phew, now I can finally get the bumpstock I’ve never wanted.
so is the state paying for peoples destroyed property or nah?
Dupe
5th circuit court of appeals accepts appeal of bumpstock ban en banc (update ban struck down, post 26)
The 3 judge panel on the 5th circuit upheld the district court ruling saying the bumpstock ban was legal. The 3 judge panel was 1 Clinton judge, 2 Obama The en banc panel will be all active judges in the 5th, so 12 GOP nominated and 5 democrat nominated. The 5th circuit is the most...www.northeastshooters.com
Good question.How about restitution for forcing companies to go out of business?
Apply for a MG permit.I’d get one just because I can now (except I’m in ma)
Did not want one originally. Kinda do now.
Stop being a Skinflint, bro.$300 vs $20-40k?
Yeah… no…
Sniff. I’m sorry…Stop being a Skinflint, bro.