Doesn't the New York city concealed carry ban case have merit?Ill admit I wish there was a better case going to SCOTUS. Not that this one doesn’t have meritt, it absolutely does, but it’s hard to stake your claim on a novelty item vs something like AWB, mag limits, ammo tax, may issue CCW, etc.
The language in the law defines a machine gun as something entirely different than what a bumpstock does. Seems pretty cut and dry if they stick to the law as written@Ikarus1 absolutely, I'd love to see something like that get shot down by SCOTUS!
That said, I still can't see how they can justify banning the bumpstock by classifying it as an MG when it's just an accessory that doesn't change the function of fire, just increases the rate.
The language in the law defines a machine gun as something entirely different than what a bumpstock does
Just saw a VCDL update a little bit ago, claiming details to follow, but in short there were TWO stays before the court, one of which got shot down. The other one will have its fate decided tomorrow.
The previous alert mentioned that a stay on the bump-stock ban was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. HOWEVER, it turns out that was for a stay filed by a different group. The VCDL/GOA stay is still alive! We probably aren't going to know what the Supreme Court says about that stay until tomorrow.
Stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed.
(We will be also discussing all of this in the VCDL membership meeting tonight in Chesterfield from 7 to 8 pm at the North Courthouse Road library.)
-
Finally, this was forwarded to me by Stephen P. Wenger:
That Smoldering Bump-Stock Controversy: One of the pioneers of bump stock devices is warning owners not to turn them over to the federal government thoughtlessly ahead of this week’s deadline for doing so under new rules outlawing them. William L. Akins, inventor of the Akins Accelerator, says people turning in bump stocks should be wary of any forms relinquishing their rights to the property, and also should ask for a property receipt signaling that while they have turned over the device, they still have an ownership stake in it. Should the courts side with gun owners in their challenges to the new rules banning bump stocks, the device owners then have a chance to get their property back – or to at least be compensated... (This article goes on to describe Akins' unsuccessful attempt to get F Troopers to sign his own receipt form. I don't know whether any list members own these devices nor what they used to sell for. While I understand and sympathize with Akins' position, unless F Troop has reformed over recent decades, giving F Troop a hard time could result in an unpleasant visit by an entry team at oh-dark hundred.)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/24/william-l-akins-akins-accelerator-bump-stock-inven/
As I recall, in the unexcerpted portion of the linked article, Akins surrendered 63 of them.
. He is worse than Obama.
Obama never actually banned anything.
Obama never actually banned anything.
The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.If it's truly unconstitutional, would be overturned. Overturned in the courts (unconstitutional) or by law (popular).
The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.
well so far the SCOTUS has taken up 2 gun related major cases after years of avoiding the issue (basically since Heller and McDonald):The courts, and legislatures, have been showing a real tendency to want to avoid the issue. Unless their activist regressive libruls, in which case they uphold and affirm it.
Won't what be a case?Won’t this be a case about executive overreach, and not about 2a? The result could have all sorts of implications and I’m not sure but I expect that most justices will vote to reign it the executive branch.
Won’t the arguments at the court focus on executive overreach rather than parsing the issues around the definition of a machine gun?Won't what be a case?
No I mean what case? There isn't one that I know of.Won’t the arguments at the court focus on executive overreach rather than parsing the issues around the definition of a machine gun?
Sorry, I believe that there were some injunctions filed, one denied and one pending, each related to cases that I assume have been filed but that the court has not yet agreed to hear. So in short, I only know what I’ve read on the internet.No I mean what case? There isn't one that I know of.
No I mean what case? There isn't one that I know of.
They denied a preliminary injunction that would alleviate the ban until the case is heard. Which is absurd. The ban of this unserialized untracked item is currently in effect, so make sure you turn in all those rubber bands and belt loops to your local ATF. Oh wait, just the COMMERCIALLY SOLD ways to bumpfire.Didn’t the court deny this?
Ban stays?