• 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.

Supreme Court screws us once again

MAJoe said:
They’re banned by MA law, so this means nothing.
Click to expand...
It means a lot because it limits the ATF power.
As far as what it means to us directly, legal or not, they are ultra-lame and I would never own one. Full autos are cool because as a gun collector, it's desirable to have an authentic rifle as used by a military without it being crippled. Simulating that with a bump-stock is like simulating sex. It's not the same - and firing quickly is not inherently interesting anyway.
 
MAJoe said:
They’re banned by MA law, so this means nothing.
Click to expand...
Fwiw, most don't care about mass drama and mass bullshit. This case has far broader implications than that. Sure it's not going to overturn some stupid law in a commie state... this is more about establishing a framework that limits the atf's regulatory authority.
 
drgrant said:
Fwiw, most don't care about mass drama and mass bullshit. This case has far broader implications than that. Sure it's not going to overturn some stupid law in a commie state... this is more about establishing a framework that limits the atf's regulatory authority.
Click to expand...

This is the 5th circuit reaffirming very clearly that the ATF doesn’t have the power to legislate, that the ATF has a history of inconsistent application of the GCA and NFA, and does not have the power to regulate firearm accessories, regardless of chevron deference. The 5th circuit clearly said that bump stocks aren’t machine guns, and the ATF was wrong to classify them as machine guns to the letter of the law. Let’s see if the ATF tries to now regulate pistol braces, and see how far that goes. They may even push the federal courts to overturn regulation of SBRs and suppressors as unconstitutional altogether.
 
Trebor said:
It means a lot because it limits the ATF power.
As far as what it means to us directly, legal or not, they are ultra-lame and I would never own one. Full autos are cool because as a gun collector, it's desirable to have an authentic rifle as used by a military without it being crippled. Simulating that with a bump-stock is like simulating sex. It's not the same - and firing quickly is not inherently interesting anyway.
Click to expand...
Full auto is fun to do once in a while. It just is and nothing to do with collecting.

A bump stock though, is more like having sex wearing a condiment...
 
Drix said:
First they came for bump stocks, but I didn't care because bump stocks are dumb and I didn't own one.
Then they came for pistol braces...
Click to expand...

Exactly. We need to fight EVERY infringement at this point; whether it affects us personally or not.

it will be interesting to see how this translates to FRT triggers as well.
 

Similar threads

Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
638
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
376
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom