Messages
3,044
Reactions
5,997
Frt, bump stock, and others is not a common use item that would have restricted the rights of a lot of citizens for self defense.
That's quite true and no doubt played a part. They have to make judicious use of the courts time and aren't necessarily too concerned about making case history for the benefit of either side of the isle.. just for the sake of it.
 
Messages
4,108
Reactions
10,215
I dunno. Altering the semi-auto function of a firearm to mimic that closer to a MG (aka dangerous device) is a bit different than an SBR, IMHO. An SBR is no more "dangerous" than any other semi auto pistol/rifle in the same calibers. SBR's are also argueably an error addition to the NFA and unintentional effect. The foundation of which is now a relic perception in history past. IOW, no longer applicable in modern times.

I wouldn't bet on it, but I'm not writing it off as hopeless just yet.
The ridiculous arguments against features on guns aren't based in fact. A machine gun, a shorter gun, a barrel shroud, ect, in themselves will cause everyone in possession on them to create a mass event.

Character, common decency and respect of life has nothing to do with it. If you have a gun you want to kill someone, they will say. 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands prove otherwise.
 
Messages
47
Reactions
48
It could be that Scotus doesn't take the cases that are not a clear infringement of the right to self defense using guns in "common use" (miller).
[snip]
But broad restrictions of semi autos?, ARs, and magazines? Sure seems to me those are in common use on a huge scale and restricting those would restrict the right. But just IMO based on a single quick skim of Heller 2008.
Certainly from what I see at the range, AR platform must be the majority of rifles sold in the years since the AWB expired. And I mean a large majority, not just a plurality.

But a court's understanding of "common use" and a common-sense understanding of the term need not be even close to the same, right? IANAL, BTW.
 
Messages
65
Reactions
73
I look at scotus as analogous to a company ceo, they provide strategic direction and correct things when they really go wrong, but they leave management of the company to the managers.

Fe scotus told lower courts to stop using the two step process. Frt, bump stock, and others is not a common use item that would have restricted the rights of a lot of citizens for self defense.

I say this largely due to how many 2A cases they have accepted. How many total 2A cases have they heard since 1900? Less than 10 I would guess (I'm not sure but I know it's a small number). That fact alone means TONS of worthy 2A cases will not be heard. It's only the big ones that give strategic direction to the courts below or big effect on 2A rights for lots of poeple using guns in common use. At least that's how it seems to me.
Excellent points that I personally hadn't considered. "In common use..." is the key phrase to remember when a case is filed at any level.
 
Messages
5,606
Reactions
17,701
That's quite true and no doubt played a part. They have to make judicious use of the courts time and aren't necessarily too concerned about making case history for the benefit of either side of the isle.. just for the sake of it.
I wish I had 3 months to write an assessment on all of my cases. :rolleyes:

Law is weird. its like a distillate of a bunch of opinions. Like we were cooking and someone threw peppermint into the lasagna recipe and for the next 30 years we have to say "sorry, that's precedent, we all have to eat peppermint lasagna now"
 
Messages
13,013
Reactions
21,931

In the light of Bruen........I don't see how the SCOTUS can ignore the case. AND, the issue of compensation.

Aloha, Mark
 
Messages
8,005
Reactions
13,297

I light of Bruen I don't see how the SCOTUS can ignore the case. AND, the issue of compensation.

Aloha, Mark
Probably because the stocks are not firearms. I know, theyre trying to have it both ways.
 
Messages
13,013
Reactions
21,931
With that kind of thinking......
"Not a Firearm" would also open the door to include magazine bans without compensation to owners?

Not to mention.....
The door would be open for .......
The blocks of metal, computer software files, machine tools/3 D machines, etc........ etc...... that could/might/potentially one day be used to make or become a firearm?

Aloha, Mark
 
Messages
4,108
Reactions
10,215
Probably because the stocks are not firearms. I know, theyre trying to have it both ways.
Regardless, not compensating for products legally purchased is wrong. Something I pray we never get used to. I did 10 yrs in the military. I loved most of it. Every time I hear a friend say their kid is joining now, I cringe.

It's not them, God bless em. It's the things they're told the are going to suffer for. It doesn't hold water anymore.
 
Messages
8,005
Reactions
13,297
Regardless, not compensating for products legally purchased is wrong. Something I pray we never get used to. I did 10 yrs in the military. I loved most of it. Every time I hear a friend say their kid is joining now, I cringe.

It's not them, God bless em. It's the things they're told the are going to suffer for. It doesn't hold water anymore.
They’re doing the same thing with frt triggers . Their position is that it was never legal even though it was purchased in good faith
 

Upcoming Events

Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Granite Falls, WA
Klamath Falls Gun Show
Klamath Falls, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top