Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 02:41:47 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: 5th Circuit Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 53 Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:41:48 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 2891 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17da57f2cae5dafc$3537$35484$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3269 On 6/18/24 8:18 AM, FPP wrote: > On 6/14/24 3:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> In article , >>   "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >> >>> BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5th-circuit-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-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?