Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban

[DDTSGM]

SCOTUS decisions like this can be reversed at SCOTUS' discretion. Clarence Thomas pulls a Scalia and another "surprise retirement" like Kennedy for Alito or Roberts would turn that 6-3 majority into a 4-5 minority before November. The idea that you can spike the ball after a SCOTUS decision like this-- in a post-Dobbs world-- is fallacy. Bruen, McDonald and possibly Heller will be reversed as soon as feasible. Dobbs guaranteed that. There are no permanent victories. You absolutely have to reach people that are on the fence.

Just thinking out loud for a moment - wouldn't it be nice if things were actually as the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote and successfully got the Constitution ratified?

If the Supreme Court wasn't politicized would we have the worries outlined in the post above?

I wish I was smart enough to even suggest a realistic approach to de-politicizing the SCOTUS.

I do truly believe our Nation would be better off in the long run, even though we (speaking of the political party 'we') wouldn't always get what we wanted.

Just spitballing.

EDIT: Also just want to give a shout out to P Sweeney for making the Court's Opinion in a couple of places.

[joshs]

That’s exactly what you heard is stories. Fiction the stuff conspiracy theory’s are made of. We have not had a veto proof piece of legislation proposed in a long long time.

There was no concern of a veto. The concern was based on a piece of legislation making it to his desk in the immediate aftermath of the worst mass shooting in US history when Trump was getting bad info on guns (John Kelly was no friend to gun owners).

ETA: Lots of legislation passess with veto proof majorities, but I'm guessing you mean gun legislation.

[Sig_Fiend]

Personally, I'd rather put more effort into educating new gun owners and the middle of the road moderate types about things like suppressors, the downside of barrel length regulations, and the pitfalls of regulations affected by superficial accessories (e.g. vertical foregrips, stocks vs braces on the wrong gun, etc.). I see that as having the potential of being far more productive in the long run.

[Spartan1980]

This but because the pressure was on and it benefited him at the time. Trump is about Trump—he pretended to be a limousine liberal to get ahead in the 90s just like he pretends to be a conservative today. He has no personal stake in 2A, immigration or abortion, he goes with what gets him ahead at the time.

Doesn't that apply to all who hold high office?

[Borderland]

Just a question about braces because I don't know. If they truly were intended for a handicapped person, say one arm, why wasn't that regulated as a permit to own like a can or SBR? The ATF would probably have that authority to regulate as they already have authority over SBR's in general. Of course there will be lawsuits but it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Lots of people apply for an SBR license.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There was no concern of a veto. The concern was based on a piece of legislation making it to his desk in the immediate aftermath of the worst mass shooting in US history when Trump was getting bad info on guns (John Kelly was no friend to gun owners).

ETA: Lots of legislation passess with veto proof majorities, but I'm guessing you mean gun legislation.

Despite the various tales told, it seems from this, that there was a serious risk of Trump signing restrictive legislation and the bump ban diverted him he as got some good info.

So, if the rampage was done with standard ARs, who knows what might have happened? Or still might with moral panics. All the more reason for Scotus clarity on this issue of semi ownership. One can see compromises such as allowing semi long guns with shall issue sorts of licensure. NYS is sort of in that direction with restrictions on gun configurations and mag limits. My concealed permit as added a line that I'm approved for semi long arm purchases if the gun is compliant. I could see the gun and mag rules going away but the permitting staying. If handgun permitting is allowed, not a far reach for the EBRs.

But who knows. I don't underestimate the power of moral panics to get more laws in place.

[TDA]

I misunderstood. I definitely would not pick a brace, even if it was cosmetically similar to a stock. A good example is the (new?) CAR brace PSA is flogging, it looks like a FiberLite stock from side profile but the cross section is more like a blade. It’s about 80% of the way there. However, that last 20% is important to me.

I’ve seen many people not replace their braces with stocks after the amnesty since they are “good enough.”

Am I the only one here with a pistol braced ‘other firearm’ that is an absolute piece of shit that is unsatisfactory in literally every regard? Apologies in advance for thread drift, but I’m a little upset about it.

[HeavyDuty]

Am I the only one here with a pistol braced ‘other firearm’ that is an absolute piece of shit that is unsatisfactory in literally every regard? Apologies in advance for thread drift, but I’m a little upset about it.

Now I’m curious what you have. I know the nutmeg state has a unique loophole, but I don’t have the details.

[camel]

Am I the only one here with a pistol braced ‘other firearm’ that is an absolute piece of shit that is unsatisfactory in literally every regard? Apologies in advance for thread drift, but I’m a little upset about it.

No.

[DMF13]

Just a question about braces because I don't know. If they truly were intended for a handicapped person, say one arm, why wasn't that regulated as a permit to own like a can or SBR? The ATF would probably have that authority to regulate as they already have authority over SBR's in general. Of course there will be lawsuits but it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Lots of people apply for an SBR license.

There is no "SBR license," it must be taxed and registered, but its not a "license," and the statute does not allow ATF to grant exceptions/exemptions for handicapped people. If a handicapped person wants to legally possess a SBR, they must pay the tax, and register the firearm, just like everyone else.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5841

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/t...pter-B/part-II