OutAtTheEdge
Member
Breaking news just now. I'm sure this will get discussed to a fare-thee-well in the coming days. Stay tuned...
SCOTUS Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
- Thread starter OutAtTheEdge
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Good. That was certainly the legally appropriate thing to do. I don't own a bump stock, don't particularly want a bump stock. That being said it is inappropriate for the administrative state to over-reach themselves like that. Let the congress pass laws. That's what he pay the clowns to do.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 9,978
They mis-named that device....
Shoulda been called the "spray & pray ammo wasting device"...
That said, the only time I ever shot one it did put a smile on my face...
Shoulda been called the "spray & pray ammo wasting device"...
That said, the only time I ever shot one it did put a smile on my face...
Last edited:
hkcavalier
US Veteran
I too think they're pretty dumb, but always good to roll back firearm restrictions.
As with the "pistol brace" rule and the attempt by ATF to redefine "engaged in the business" this is more a ruling limiting what bureaucracies can do than a 2A issue.
Either way it's a win.
Either way it's a win.
I hear it cited as a basis for the ban that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks. I seem to recall that there were photos of bump stocks in the shooter's room, but was there any confirmation that the bump stocks were used as opposed to other full auto weapons?
Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?
Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.
Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?
Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.
This sums it up for me as well ^^^^
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
It was less about firearms in a strict sense than following the law in creating regulations. But a win is a win and gives some further groundwork for future cases to be argued upon.
1BadSmith
Member
...of course not...
Not my thing at all. I can waste enough ammo without any help
. That said , Agencies do not (or at least “should not) make laws. No agency should be able to make it up as they go. Same with “pistol braces”, don’t like ‘em, don’t want one, BUT that’s a legislative issue NOT one to be determined by fiat.
A ruling curbing bureaucratic overreach in making regulations will have far more implications down stream than one solely based on the Second Amendment.
As with the pistol brace and "engaged in the business" rules, this was rule making by the ATF beyond what Congress intended. I expect that both will be decided based on this decision.
As with the pistol brace and "engaged in the business" rules, this was rule making by the ATF beyond what Congress intended. I expect that both will be decided based on this decision.
How timely considering a nearby gun show this weekend.
Glad it was overturned, still don’t want one
Rpg
Member
This isn’t a 2nd amendment case, it’s just a plain vanilla statutory construction case in the context of an Administrative Procedure Act rule making setting.
Nothing interesting here: just well settled law applied to rule making activities by an administrative agency.
Nothing interesting here: just well settled law applied to rule making activities by an administrative agency.
Same with me...
I don't care a hoot about 'bump stocks' but they need to quit searching for things to ban.
I don't care a hoot about 'bump stocks' but they need to quit searching for things to ban.
Here's a link to the full opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
