Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

In article <v52kse$2qv7o$6@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 6/19/24 3:41 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 6/18/24 8:18 AM, FPP wrote:

On 6/14/24 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v4i2m6$30bm2$1@dont-email.me>,
� "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-d
own-t
>
rump-bump-stock-ban/

>

A Trump administration ban on bump stocks-- devices that enable a
shooter
to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapons after an
initial trigger pull-- was struck down Friday by a federal appeals
court in
New Orleans.

>

The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel
using
bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in
2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts.
The 13-3
ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest on
the issue,
which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.

>
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the government, and
accepted
because of the circuit split. Garland v. Cargill
>
Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, siding against the
government and in favor of Michael Cargill, the gun store owner who had
turned in two bump stocks to ATF to have standing to sue to have the
regulation overturned.

>
This is great news. The ban was struck down not on some technicality,
but on the basis that the law says what it says and the BATF can't just
decide it wants to 'interpret it' to mean something entirely different
to conform to the politics of the moment and make instant felons out of
hundreds of thousands of citizens who legally bought expensive equipment
that the government refuses to reimburse them for while at the same time
requiring them to surrender it to law enforcement.

>
It was struck down by an illegitimate and corrupt court because they
were paid to strike it down.
>
Once you get that, all rulings become clear.

 
Isn't it queer how when I pointed him to Harvard Law Professor Laurence
Tribe's explanation of the situation Thanny shut his fucking mouth on
the subject?
 

He doesn't have a good rebuttal because there isn't one.
Everybody who uses common sense understands what the law was designed to do.
 
Bump stocks are a newer technology than the law didn't foresee... but it
doesn't take a law professor to understand the intent.

That's why we have a Congress that can amend statutes to take into
account changes in technology. They do it all the time with the things
like the internet. They can do it with the National Firearms Act, also.

Your delusions (and Hutt's) aside, courts don't decide technical matters
of law based on intent. Legislative history is only a tool to resolve
ambiguity. There's no ambiguity here. The statute's text is both
extremely detailed and clear. Neither the Judicial Branch nor the
Executive Branch have the constitutional authority to make or amend
statutory law. Only the Legislative Branch can do that.

This is something most of us learned in grade school. Apparently Effa
and the BATF were in a coma that day.