Supreme Court screws us once again

"We are faithfully following President Trump’s leadership by making clear that bump stocks, which turn semiautomatics into machine guns, are illegal, and we will continue to take illegal guns off of our streets," Whitaker said in a statement at the time.

And don't forget it when you vote for who you want on the ballot.
 
You should. Even if you don't care about bump stocks themselves, they declared them illegal and required forfeiture without compensation. If they do it with bump stocks, they can do it with anything.
not sure if i care much about supreme court beings neither.
all those decorations of the past are pretty dysfunctional now anyway. the law enforcement on the ground and local executive powers successfully ignores most of them anyway.
 
Pretty common for them to deny cert when there isn't even a split yet among the circuit courts.

I can see them thinking they will have a shot at part of or all of the GCA and NFA soon enough, so why get lost in the weeds.
 
not sure if i care much about supreme court beings neither.
all those decorations of the past are pretty dysfunctional now anyway. the law enforcement on the ground and local executive powers successfully ignores most of them anyway.
While SCOTUS is useless a lot of the time and outright bad for freedom the rest, the problem isn't bumpstocks. it's how the ban was enacted. It's a huge, huge problem and it's a mega can of worms. Bumpstocks are dumb and not significant. the way they did this was clever, effective and going to lead to alllllllll sorts of bullshit with the ATF.

SCOTUS knows it. ATF knows it. Orange Man is orange. We get f***ed, as usual.
 
You should. Even if you don't care about bump stocks themselves, they declared them illegal and required forfeiture without compensation. If they do it with bump stocks, they can do it with anything.

Then they should have gone after the financial angle but it sounds like they didn't. Perhaps a big miss there.
 
Bump stocks would be the wrong case for the Supreme Court to review. Many ways to skin a cat, but this would have resulted in a grossly eff'ed up looking skinless cat.
Likely any decision on bump stocks would be crafted not to generalize in any meaningful way.
 
Go after NFA or the hughes amendment then who cares about bumpstocks - the general public doesn't care to know the difference so the case is the same in the public eye.
How? Where? 0% chance SCOTUS will hear that. They aren't dumb.

They just give us the occasional scrap. Which goes mostly ignored anyway.
 
Remember - bump stocks aren't illegal per se. They are now machine guns so only those made pre 86 are able to be legally transferred. Since no bump stocks existed at that time then there are no transferable bump stocks.

Bruen doesn't stop them from taxing guns (unless it is excessive) but it does stop them from making them illegal - machine guns were in common use until 1934 so the Hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional in light of TTH.
Taxing firearms is a different fight but a prohibitive tax has already been somewhat addressed in the Dicta of Bruen
 
How? Where? 0% chance SCOTUS will hear that. They aren't dumb.

They just give us the occasional scrap. Which goes mostly ignored anyway.
There was a 0% chance of Bruen, Heller, Caetano (a public defender taking a stripper's case to SCOTUS and winning), and overturning the greatest settled law of all.
 
There was a 0% chance of Bruen, Heller, Caetano (a public defender taking a stripper's case to SCOTUS and winning), and overturning the greatest settled law of all.
You're the legal mind here when us 2 chat. I yield to you 99% of the time on the subject.

That said you know you're being silly if you're comparing striking down NFA/Hughes/etc to any modern 2A case that SCOTUS has heard.

I think it would be pretty reasonable to get rid of the 86' ban. Would SCOTUS? I can't imagine how or why they would think it's a good idea. We'd need an aggressive 2A activist bench for that and we dont have it.
 
You're the legal mind here when us 2 chat. I yield to you 99% of the time on the subject.

That said you know you're being silly if you're comparing striking down NFA/Hughes/etc to any modern 2A case that SCOTUS has heard.

I think it would be pretty reasonable to get rid of the 86' ban. Would SCOTUS? I can't imagine how or why they would think it's a good idea. We'd need an aggressive 2A activist bench for that and we dont have it.
That's the elephant - small bites to get there.
We NEED to kill AWB and magazine limits first to establish good case law on how Text, Tradition and History are to be interpreted before jumping in with both feet.
I believe permanent non-violent felony prohibition is another step on the path.
Getting rid of the tax stamp will be well after Hughes when disparate impact can be argued because of affordability.
An open bolt semi-auto is super cheap to manufacture therefore would be accessible to even the most destitute for protection, however open bolt firearms are considered machineguns regardless of trigger action. A good case would go after the tax but not the registration causing a collapse of the system.
 
You're the legal mind here when us 2 chat. I yield to you 99% of the time on the subject.

That said you know you're being silly if you're comparing striking down NFA/Hughes/etc to any modern 2A case that SCOTUS has heard.

I think it would be pretty reasonable to get rid of the 86' ban. Would SCOTUS? I can't imagine how or why they would think it's a good idea. We'd need an aggressive 2A activist bench for that and we dont have it.

Congress could make it go away tomorrow but Uncle Cocaine Mitch and his senate lackeys are going to be too busy doing special sweetheart deals for giant multi national corporations. Even if Mitch were handed an 80 seat republican senate tomorrow he would sit on his hands and do nothing except for the walmarts, microsofts and facebooks of the world.
 
That's the elephant - small bites to get there.
We NEED to kill AWB and magazine limits first to establish good case law on how Text, Tradition and History are to be interpreted before jumping in with both feet.
I believe permanent non-violent felony prohibition is another step on the path.
Getting rid of the tax stamp will be well after Hughes when disparate impact can be argued because of affordability.
An open bolt semi-auto is super cheap to manufacture therefore would be accessible to even the most destitute for protection, however open bolt firearms are considered machineguns regardless of trigger action. A good case would go after the tax but not the registration causing a collapse of the system.

Technically the common use Heller thingy should of already sunk both the AWB and the mag thing. Even with MA's AG's own words that AR-15's were ubiquitous despite the ban in the state. She admitted it was common use years ago and she still got away with her scam.

Small bites and all that... I get it. But hell, most of this forum will be dead by the time anything happens big - if it ever does at all. It's a shell game.

I didn't think that Roe would be overturned so I could be wrong. Hope I am.
 
It isn't the end of the world. Learn from the Left - they take defeats in stride and keep on pressing. Constant pressure over time, persistence (as Coolidge said) will win in the end.

Bottom line: Every single sentence in the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional and the entire law needs to be either overturned or repealed. It isn't impossible that with a strong majority in Congress and a President DeSantis in 2025 we can start repealing laws that are repugnant to the Constitution.
 
I think it would be pretty reasonable to get rid of the 86' ban. Would SCOTUS? I can't imagine how or why they would think it's a good idea. We'd need an aggressive 2A activist bench for that and we dont have it.
Activism is when you go for an outcome that you desire even when it is not following the Constitution (Dred Scott/substantive due process/interstate commerce). We wouldn't need a judge to be activist to say that an M4, while not common in public hands, is only unusual due to the government tax pre-86, and the ban after 86 - and therefore cannot be banned. Scalia screwed us by listing full auto as an example of a reasonable thing to ban. He was wrong about that. He probably should have said organically unusual and not as the result of government regulation.
 
Last edited:
Technically the common use Heller thingy should of already sunk both the AWB and the mag thing. Even with MA's AG's own words that AR-15's were ubiquitous despite the ban in the state. She admitted it was common use years ago and she still got away with her scam.

Small bites and all that... I get it. But hell, most of this forum will be dead by the time anything happens big - if it ever does at all. It's a shell game.

I didn't think that Roe would be overturned so I could be wrong. Hope I am.
You are correct.
 
"I didn't think that Roe would be overturned so I could be wrong. Hope I am."

Only took 50 years. That is the thing - they deny civil rights and then it takes decades to get them back. The President should send the National Guard into states that deny civil rights and escort people to the gun stores.

"After an Alabama federal judge ruled on March 18 1965 that a third march could go ahead, President Johnson and his advisers worked quickly to find a way to ensure the safety of King and his demonstrators on their way from Selma to Montgomery. The most powerful obstacle in their way was Governor Wallace, an outspoken segregationist who was reluctant to spend any state funds on protecting the demonstrators. Hours after promising Johnson—in telephone calls recorded by the White House—that he would call out the Alabama National Guard to maintain order, Wallace went on television and demanded that Johnson send in federal troops instead.

Furious, Johnson told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write a press release stating that because Wallace refused to use the 10,000 available guardsmen to preserve order in his state, Johnson himself was calling the guard up and giving them all necessary support. Several days later, 50,000 marchers followed King some 54 miles, under the watchful eyes of state and federal troops."

I can't wait for President DeSantes to do this in MA.
 
Activism is when you go for an outcome that you desire even when it is not following the Constitution (Dred Scott/substantive due process/interstate commerce). We wouldn't need a judge to be activist to say that an M4, while not common in public hands, is only unusual due to the government tax pre-86, and the ban after 86 - and therefore cannot be banned. Scalia screwed us by listing full auto as an example of a reasonable thing to ban. He was wrong about that. He probably should have said organically unusual and not as the result of government regulation.
Yup, I said that from day one. Scalia used the term machine gun as I recall.
 
We wouldn't need a judge to be activist to say that an M4, while not common in public hands, is only unusual due to the government tax pre-86, and the ban after 86 - and therefore cannot be banned. Scalia screwed us by listing full auto as an example of a reasonable thing to ban. He was wrong about that.

He did not say it is a reasonable thing to ban. He said that "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. "

So in other words, reading the Miller decision, there is no protection of short barreled shotguns in the Second Amendment. That implies:
- there may be protection for machine guns (typical firearms utilized in warfare)
- there may be other protection such as the 14th Amendment
- there may be other decision both past and future that DO protect those weapons

Very important distinctions legally that everyone here should understand and appreciate
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom