Supreme Court rejects bid from gun rights groups to delay bump stock ban
Source: The Hill
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid by gun rights groups to temporarily delay the federal ban on bump stocks.
The rule took effect Wednesday, but the groups asked the Supreme Court to place a hold on the measure while other legal battles over the ban play out in lower courts.
The Justice Department issued a rule in December banning the devices, giving owners 90 days to turn in or destroy their bump stocks.
The request rejected on Friday asked that Supreme Court halt the ban while the groups appeal their case with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit.
Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/437593-supreme-court-rejects-bid-from-gun-rights-groups-to-delay-bump-stock
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)get this whole gun issue resolved finally rather than arguing about it all the time.
Canoe52
(2,948 posts)Just add all the super killing machines to the list. Nobodys complaining about not being able to own a machine gun or a bazooka (or maybe they are, I have no clue) so add these current nasty ones on the list, the tears wont last too long and we can send them thoughts and prayers while we celebrate with all those who didnt end up dieing from gun violence.
Kaleva
(36,309 posts)Canoe52
(2,948 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,303 posts)to power my stereo.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Mr. Fusion or flux capacitor anywhere.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)...while pistols kill around 7,000. Seems kinda backwards.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Canoe52
(2,948 posts)with a pistol?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....and spraying bullets from any firearm into a large crowd will have deadly effects, pistol or rifle.
And stats are a better guide for legislation then emotion.
Canoe52
(2,948 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Canoe52
(2,948 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)How is pointing out pistols kill almost 20x's more people then all rifles, not just "assault rifles", a "misuse of statistics"?
Inconvenient fact perhaps?
And less then 400 people out of 320 million is a tiny fraction....especially in a country where over 34,000 people die a year accidentally falling and over 58,000 people die every year in accidental poisonings. I'd start there if saving peoples lives was actually your priority.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
hack89
(39,171 posts)Short of an all out ban of all guns. Name a law - bet you it is perfectly constitutional.
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)the 2nd and they will continue to do so until the 2nd is amended to make it bone chilling clear on what is and what is not acceptable.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In any case, if we cant pass gun control that is constitutional what makes you think a law amending the 2A will pass. Dont forget it has the added burden of requiring 38 states to approve the change. Not going to happen.
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)really the best way to end alot of the arguing over the whole gun issue from both sides.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)as violating the 2nd?
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)high-capacity gun magazines in California.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Although it may go to them. That was a district court decision.
So far the only gun laws SCOTUS has objected to are Heller and McDonald both of which were de facto bans.
It will be interesting if the high capacity bans makes it to SCOTUS. I think the decision will depend upon the argument why 10 rounds is the magic number. If California can show there is a valid reason for 10 rounds, opposed to say 8 or 12 or some other number, the law will be upheld. If however 10 rounds is simply an arbitrary number to determine "high-capacity" then I would expect SCOTUS to uphold the lower court ruling.
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)As I believe the choice of 10 rounds is simply arbitrary.
In order to define "high-capacity" it is neccessary to determine standard capacity. 10 round magazines are rather unusual as standard to a pistol. I could make good arguments for lower, as in the 8 rounds in the 1911 pistols, or higher, such as the 15 of full sized 9mm pistols, but there is little logic or history supporting 10 as standard and more rounds being high capacity.
Without any such rationale or a study showing crimes committed using guns with 10 rounds or less are significantly less lethal than those with more than 10 I believe SCOTUS would rightly uphold the ruling.
IMO any restrictions to any enumerated right should be supported by factual data supporting the benefits of restricting said right.
Polybius
(15,428 posts)That would almost certainly be struck down.
hack89
(39,171 posts)According to Heller.
Permanut
(5,610 posts)is chipping away at our gun rights. Never happened under Obama. Wait, do I have that backwards?
Maxheader
(4,373 posts)action. How do these gun toadys get in front of them so quickly?.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The vast majority of such petitions are rejected. This was not a SC hearing. Every week they sit down to review all the latest petitions. If 4 justices don't vote to accept then it is rejected.
Aussie105
(5,401 posts)so that only people with legitimate reasons can own a gun powder fuelled lead projectile instrument, will do it.
Police, Army, Security guards, farmers - no one else.
Reasons like 'Because second amendment' and 'I like loud noises' and 'folks at the local church annoy me' and 'for when I get fired from my job' and 'for when the zombies attack' don't make the cut.
But Second Amendment - Honestly?
Who has a muzzle loader, with powder and shot ready at home for when the British invade?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Yours is not.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The Bill of Rights sit at the pinnacle of that system. It can't be ignored.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)And I suppose the 1st Adm. only protects ink & quill?
"Reasons like 'Because second amendment' don't make the cut."
You mean except in a court of law like the Supreme Court?