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.
"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.
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.hmm. don`t care.
probably should, but, don`t.
not sure if i care much about supreme court beings neither.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.
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.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.
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.
Likely any decision on bump stocks would be crafted not to generalize in any meaningful way.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.
How? Where? 0% chance SCOTUS will hear that. They aren't dumb.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.
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.How? Where? 0% chance SCOTUS will hear that. They aren't dumb.
They just give us the occasional scrap. Which goes mostly ignored anyway.
You're the legal mind here when us 2 chat. I yield to you 99% of the time on the subject.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.
That's the elephant - small bites to get there.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.
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.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 are correct.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.
Yup, I said that from day one. Scalia used the term machine gun as I recall.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.
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.
where can I buy one? mill?