Law The Supreme Court overturns ruling which allows people to own bump stocks

[fedorthegoat777]

Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.

 

[oldshadow]

Everyone here knows you're an old fool. If you're actually serious, I'm glad people who think like you are gone from leadership positions in the next 15-20 years. If you think for a second that Thomas should still be on the SC, you're a traitor to what this country is really about.

So you failed civics and have no idea how the Supreme Court works and what their roll in the government is.

"The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, so its decisions are binding precedent not only for the lower federal courts but also for state courts."

"When the U.S Supreme Court establishes a precedent, it may only be overruled by: The U.S Supreme Court, because its decisions are binding on all federal and state courts."

 

[oldshadow]

As to the thread a bump stock does not convert a legal semi auto in to fully auto.

It can speed up trigger pull if you practice with it. The weapon still fires one round with each pull of the trigger.

 

[llperez22]

I want bumpstocks banned. But it sounds like trump tried to ban them based on an old ruling that disallowed machine guns and based on the definition of machine gun, a bump stock did not fit. Now its up to congress to pass a law to specifically ban bump stocks. Seeing as how this got bipartisan support previously, it should not be hard to get them banned. Of course the NRA loyalist portion of the GOP will have their say.

 

[emefer]

Textbook ultracrepidarian thread.

Text book first attempt at using a new word.

 

[emefer]

Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.

This gonna be me and my boys this “season”

 

[DragRacer]

You don’t need that gimmicky stock to bump fire an AK

Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.

 

[andnowweknow]

Because a decision on a similar situation was made in the past does not mean that decision cannot be reevaluated for constitutional legality. A precedent is simply a guideline and does not guarantee the original decision was correct regardless of how often it might be cited.

It's a problem when a gaggle of political operatives run the Supreme Court. They are seen by the public as a political animal by most people for the first time in history because they are hardly trying to hide the fact that their decisions are ideological, not driven by actual sound reasoning.

 

[nostradumbass]

Nice to know we have federal lawmakers who don't know how laws are made.


This ruling is another example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench, against the will of the people," posted Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat.

 

[filthybliss]

Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.

dawg, they been overpopulating a ton. they drive my dog crazy every time that they are gathering around in the neighborhood....

 

[Teppodama]

It's a problem when a gaggle of political operatives run the Supreme Court. They are seen by the public as a political animal by most people for the first time in history because they are hardly trying to hide the fact that their decisions are ideological, not driven by actual sound reasoning.

Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.

It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.

Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

This is not a popularity contest. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to ban a bump stock or anything eluding to it. If we actually dig into the Federalist Papers and the 2nd Amendment, the intent is that Americans have access to the same standard issue firearms as the infantryman and we do not have that. When I hear a Left Cult Clown whine about it... I just see an ignorant and/or un-American fool.

Note... a bump stock gets you nowhere near the automatic capabilities of our military. I wouldn't recommend one, but I wouldn't dog someone that wanted one.

You have to draw a line somewhere, by this logic it should be legal for people to make bombs because the military are allowed to

 

[Osculater]

Time to load up on bumpstocks

 

[44nutman]

It's not the SCOTUS job to act based on the will of the people, it's their job to interpret the constitution.

Their job is also to get a shit load of free trips and gifts.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.

It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.

Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.

Eschew *

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.

It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.

Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.

Gave you the like but at least 2 if not all 3 of TR7MP''s appointees were asked about Roe v Wade and they claimed they would not overturn it to get confirmed.

 

[BFoe]

Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.

It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.

Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.

Come on now—that is far from the only problem with this Court. And I’m just referring to issues with their rulings, not even their rampant corruption.

I think maybe you had a typo here—

decided to esque precedent on some issues

—so I’m not totally sure what you meant to say, but their disregard for precedent is a serious issue actually. It’s not a minor thing.

Edit: Ah, I think Langford got it, it was supposed to be “eschew.”

 

[Deorum]

Everyone here knows you're an old fool. If you're actually serious, I'm glad people who think like you are gone from leadership positions in the next 15-20 years. If you think for a second that Thomas should still be on the SC, you're a traitor to what this country is really about.

He almost reminds me of one of my uncles back home, and it's undeniably endearing. I'll be in the shop with him working on sprint cars and instigating shit for him to go off, sometimes having to turn around to hide my smirk. Shadow ain't backing down or taking anyone's bullshit, god bless him.

That's the lefts bullshit go to when they got nothing. If you don't support men in women's and girls shower the you're a closet gay or something.

Fuck giving up and compromising unless we get what we want.

Fuck the strings attached. Fuck all they other shit they want to force on us.

 

[Cartiac]

WTF are you talking about they don't base their decisions on precedent they set the precedent as per the constitution.

Exactly, they are also obligated to consider the case based on the arguments actually presented which in this case was that a bump stock should be illegal because it changes a legal semiautomatic weapon into an illegal machine gun. The opinion simply states that is not valid based on the definitions of those terms since a machine gun is defined by firing more than one shot from a single function of the trigger which a bump stock does not do.

 

[andnowweknow]

Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.

It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.

Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.

You're being disingenuous, and you know you are. I'm sure you think it's valid to say that the justices on the right give "reasons" for their decisions...despite everyone tacitly understanding that the public legal reasoning for those decisions made from the bench is always some contorted inconsistent view tailored to the topic at hand and has little to do with the actual "reasoning" behind those decisions.

There are multiple conservatives justices on the Supreme Court forming decisions based on the their religious beliefs with "legal opinions" contorted and massaged to fit preconceived opinions that in reality have nothing to do with the law. There's even one conservative just who is flat taking bribes and two conservative justices whose wives are open about their disdain for the law and democracy.

Saying I'm saying these things because I don't like the "legal opinions" is embarrassing for both of us...I make a statement, then you make a statement...then we both have to pretend you aren't fully aware that your argument strains credulity, on top of you suggesting I'm saying what I'm saying simply because I don't like the results while in reality, your opinion is simply a rationalization of the results you want.