National Supreme Court refuses to hear bump stock ban appeal

[leadcounsel]

If they are going to hear 2A cases (the USSC turns down the vast majority of appeals) then we want them to only rule on cases which have great facts for us. The bump stock ban is not our ideal vehicle for 2A rulings.

Correct 100%. Bad facts, in a divided court, WILL result in bad law that will not help us in any way.

Also,

1. Bump stocks are debate-ably linked to the 2A. Not even all gun enthusiasts agree they are protected or necessary to a functional 2A.

2. There are 9 possible votes, and 4 are right now guaranteed to vote against them. At best, a win is a coin toss, and winning opinion will be a split court and a watered down opinion. At worst, we lose and set long-term bad precedent.

In my LEGAL, TACTICAL, and pro-2A view, let this one go at least for now. Your rights are not being infringed. You have a great functional 2nd Amendment.

Let's be tactically smart. It's not wise to just do a full straight on charge of the dug in enemy in a bunker. You have to maneuver and be patient a bit. In 5 years if we have a 7-2 or 6-3 stacked Constitutional Court, let's revisit this.

 

[billdeserthills]

Who cares. What they need to overturn is the GCA of 1968!

You should build a few 80% guns in protest

 

[Slobray]

Correct 100%. Bad facts, in a divided court, WILL result in bad law that will not help us in any way.

Also,

1. Bump stocks are debate-ably linked to the 2A. Not even all gun enthusiasts agree they are protected or necessary to a functional 2A.

2. There are 9 possible votes, and 4 are right now guaranteed to vote against them. At best, a win is a coin toss, and winning opinion will be a split court and a watered down opinion. At worst, we lose and set long-term bad precedent.

In my LEGAL, TACTICAL, and pro-2A view, let this one go at least for now. Your rights are not being infringed. You have a great functional 2nd Amendment.

Let's be tactically smart. It's not wise to just do a full straight on charge of the dug in enemy in a bunker. You have to maneuver and be patient a bit. In 5 years if we have a 7-2 or 6-3 stacked Constitutional Court, let's revisit this.

For me, it's honestly not about the bump stocks themselves (personally, I don't want one, but don't believe they should be banned either), it's about the way an agency that's supposed to enforce laws (the ATF) decided to effectively create a new law and change the long standing definition of what a machine gun is.

If this way of business stands, this leaves the door open for the next dem president to have the same agency reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as machine guns and outlaw them.

Let congress pass the laws and stop all of the un-elected bureaucrats from making rules according to their masters agenda.



Ray

 

[308]

....which could mean a lot to the 2A.

Does it ever though? Seems we who are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights prefer to stand hat in hand before other humans asking for God given rights to be maintained. I don't really much care what humans, who believe they have a higher moral authority over my life and property, have to say about anything.

 

[bbbass]

Does it ever though? Seems we who are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights prefer to stand hat in hand before other humans asking for God given rights to be maintained. I don't really much care what humans, who believe they have a higher moral authority over my life and property, have to say about anything.

Oh, I quite agree!

Yet..........

We humans all over the world live in communities we call countries. Ours is supposed to be governed based on the founding documents, which confirm the existence of those inalienable rights you mention. IMO, there will always be a fight to defend/protect those rights. It's the nature of people/governments. I just think we shouldn't have to fight so hard and so often. Oy,vey... what the world is coming to...........

 

[leadcounsel]

For me, it's honestly not about the bump stocks themselves (personally, I don't want one, but don't believe they should be banned either), it's about the way an agency that's supposed to enforce laws (the ATF) decided to effectively create a new law and change the long standing definition of what a machine gun is.

If this way of business stands, this leaves the door open for the next dem president to have the same agency reclassify all semi-automatic firearms as machine guns and outlaw them.

Let congress pass the laws and stop all of the un-elected bureaucrats from making rules according to their masters agenda.

Ray

You'll get no disagreement with me, and I suspect most folks find it all distasteful.

So what is the remedy? Fighting now with a 4/4/1 Court that MIGHT rule against us administratively? Or if we win, a really watered down decision?

No.

We wait until we have solid control of the SCOTUS. Hopefully we also soon gain control of the House and a bigger Senate Control. We stack the Court with more Constitutional Judges, and we pass solid pro-gun laws and repeal anti-gun laws.

Taking cases to the Court now is just really risky IMO.

 

[Xaevian]

The state level is where the front of the war is. The SCOTUS is where the stretegic long term wins will be. Even recent gun hating presidents couldn't really make any headway at the fed level. Pendulum may be swinging our way down the line.

 

[CharlesNichols]

how does it work for other cases like our Open Carry case in Hawaii which is 15-20 years old and stuck waiting for another year before a new hearing in in the 9th court?

The Young v. Hawaii lawsuit was filed on June 12, 2012. A long time ago but not 15-20 years. The denial of the bump stock cert petition is irrelevant as it was not a Second Amendment case.

 

[Taku]

Making and argument that bump stocks are some how more deadly if used? Is like saying a truck having a bumper, makes it more deadly. It has 100% to do with whom is using the device. The device it's self can not be destructive, regardless of attachments. Be it Bumper or Bump stocks.