National Scotus bump stock oral arguments tomorrow (Cargill)

[lucusloc]

Don't own a bump stock. Have zero interesting in owning one. But it is fun to watch the arguments.

Unfortunately this is going to impact a whole lot more than just bumpstocks. I hope even the justices that don't like the contraptions can see that and make the correct ruling.

 

[HA556]

Unfortunately this is going to impact a whole lot more than just bumpstocks. I hope even the justices that don't like the contraptions can see that and make the correct ruling.

Money buys just about everything unfortunately!

 

[Ura-Ki]

This thing is going to be close, but I think we will win! I don't care about the bump stock at all, nor do I care about the Forced Reset Triggers, BUT, I do care about the AFT and the Executive Admin making LAW by fiat, expressly against Congress, so this SHOULD be ruled as as separation of powers,, AND the AFT should loose this!

If the SCOTUS actually looks at the issue at hand, and that's the AFT's over reach in creating LAW with real consequences regardless of the rule of lenity, this SHOULD be a slam dunk against the AFT and their illegal powers!

Basically, this case is but ONE that seriously challenges Fed Agencies like the AFT, IRS, CDC, FDA, and all the rest, making law which is the exclusive preview of Congress ONLY, and not these agencies or POTUS!

Thankfully, there were Many Amicus Briefs to the court specifically spelling things out, AND, there were links supplied for the Justices to review at their leisure, ( Something Amy Comy-Barrette expressly stated she had done) so we know the justices HAD to review every singe brief, so I would hope they follow those briefs and can blow out the false ones from the states and fed's and do the right thing, which I do think they will! Bottom line, the Bump Stock Challenge it's self is the the vehicle to show AFT over reach, Nothing more, the bonus would be if the SCOTUS rules on both issues, that the Bump Stock is NOT A MACHINE GUN, and that the AFT has no power to create LAW!

 

[Ura-Ki]

View: https://youtu.be/dVyPJMS8-bI?si=_lvdM9uGfA2KUF4p

 

[Gbirk]

Side note about what atf lawyer said about bump firing. I was always wondering can they bust you for using belt loop etc. he said they can't. So seems like best fast firing trigger would be one tuned for the easiest bump fire. That trigger plus practice would be safe legally and also produce bursts or mag dumps fairly consistently I would guess (at least for range use). Safe legally until atf changes their mind again though I guess. But they are on record now in front of scotus saying bump firing without a device on the gun is legal. Heading to the woods for massive bump firing in 3... 2... 1...

With a good trigger and very little practice bump-firing is very easy.

For legal reasons I have no idea who this is, but I know this was his 1st trip to the range with this gun.

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/kb4f5k5SxB4

 

[CamoDeafie]

The problem is that the bumpstock "rule" was not enacted by Congress. Thats the main topic IMO, and yet one that wasn't really elaborated/touched on in the oral arguments. We can clearly see which way 3 of the Justices will go, in favor of ATF and increased govt agency powers versus at least two who would curtail govt agency powers.. and that leaves 4 who may be a bit squishier on the topic of whether agencies can make rules to fit "legislative intent" as opposed to enforcing and following legislation as written by Congress.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The problem is that the bumpstock "rule" was not enacted by Congress. Thats the main topic IMO, and yet one that wasn't really elaborated/touched on in the oral arguments. We can clearly see which way 3 of the Justices will go, in favor of ATF and increased govt agency powers versus at least two who would curtail govt agency powers.. and that leaves 4 who may be a bit squishier on the topic of whether agencies can make rules to fit "legislative intent" as opposed to enforcing and following legislation as written by Congress.

Gosuch Alito and Thomas are firmly in favor of plaintiffs imo. Roberts leaning to defense. Coney barret and kavanaugh unknown.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

New video from mark smith. I didn't watch yet but sounds like he is getting into the implications from the atf lawyer saying they can still prosecute you even if lower court says they are legal.

Im wondering if the lawyers statement might be enough to push kavanaugh to our side thinking someone has to reign this agency in.

View: https://youtu.be/WlT_TV2CoKg?si=Qw9ETi602zaA1IHM

So a person in the 5th circuit could have a letter from atf previously saying they are legal and a copy of the courts decision saying they are currently legal in the 5th district, but atf could still put them in jail for 10 years. How f'd up is that?

 

[CamoDeafie]

New video from mark smith. I didn't watch yet but sounds like he is getting into the implications from the atf lawyer saying they can still prosecute you even if lower court says they are legal.

Im wondering if the lawyers statement might be enough to push kavanaugh to our side thinking someone has to reign this agency in.

View: https://youtu.be/WlT_TV2CoKg?si=Qw9ETi602zaA1IHM

So a person in the 5th circuit could have a letter from atf previously saying they are legal and a copy of the courts decision saying they are currently legal in the 5th district, but atf could still put them in jail for 10 years. How f'd up is that?

Thanks to Mark posting a pdf link from the SCOTUS, for an accurate transcript of the entire thing with notations of whos saying what.. one thing jumped out and I'm surprised that neither the DOJ lawyer nor the plaintiffs lawyers caught and flagged, and corrected..

"Illegal machine guns". As in the Justices seemed to talk as if machine guns are all prohibited by Congress.

I guess it depends on their definitions, but... an American, a law abiding citizen can and do in fact own machine guns duly registered with tax stamp paid, as long as they're either manufactured prior to 1986(transferable MGs), or as long as the American is a FFL SOT holder, or a Govt Agency/LEO/Military with specific criteria

 

[Stomper]

Hate to be a broken record on this, but I'm not sure if the court cares all that much about "us", I think rulings that favor us are just happenstance because they overlap whatever it is they are actually doing

Bottom line:

Do NOT rely on lawyers wearing black robes to save you.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Do NOT rely on lawyers wearing black robes to save you.

Indeed. And as we have all seen and read...and heard for those blessed with hearing... States and Agencies do not always feel compelled to follow SCOTUS rulings or even District rulings.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

New video by mark smith that goes into detail of some of the arguments about manual vs automatic, Clarence Thomas's position, 1:1 ratio 1 function 1 round etc:

View: https://youtu.be/K92LSAU9Ou4?si=y6AOWBqm_kqlP9y1

 

[CountryGent]

Extremely unlikely that it would happen, but it would be hilarious if the Hughes Amendment got the boot in the process.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Extremely unlikely that it would happen, but it would be hilarious if the Hughes Amendment got the boot in the process.

You have to remember also, there is an argument in one of the District Courts regarding CA's guns & ammo tax (and I don't mean taxing the Guns & Ammo publication ) , that a Right subject to a tax or fee cannot be a Right but a priviliege.

Edit. This specific route may work better against NFA as a whole than trying to attack the NFA via the ATF rulings.

Edit 2, if its unconstitutional to impose a tax or fee schedule upon the classes of Firearms under NFA, even with respect to "dangerous and unusual" weapons.. then there is also no point in keeping the MG registry closed via Hughes Amendment.. and ultimately, in accordance to also FOPA 1986 I think it was?, NFA's registration schemes would also be struck down as unconstitutional since they(registered firearms) could no longer be taxed upon transfer or manufacturing/making, if the tax thing is found to also apply to NFA.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Video from Mark smith that explores whether justice Jackson let the cat out of the bag that Chevron deference will be gone. I was skeptical at first but having listened to ita couple times it sure does appear that way to me.

Skip to 4:17 mark

View: https://youtu.be/THl1TiBAhoA?si=UmPurwP8fsjeyNTL

I also agree that justice Kagen tried to put the cat back in the bag as he said.

Skip to 6:30 mark to hear Kagan.