Bump Stock Case Expedited by Court of Appeals in DC

[Natural Citizen]

This is technically a Constitution issue. Not a law and justice system issue. Not unless anyone can find judicial review in Article III. Ahem.

Anyway...

''The appeal by the Plaintiffs against the BATFE in the bump stock ruling has been expedited. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the parties to submit briefs by March 4th of 2019.''

Continued - Bump Stock Case Expedited by Court of Appeals in DC

 

[TNHarley]

Feel good legislation that was only done to satisfy the knee jerkers.
Ban this so they will go by a rubber band.. <rolls eyes>
I hate the fed gov.

 

[TNHarley]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

 

[MisterBeale]

Feel good legislation that was only done to satisfy the knee jerkers.
Ban this so they will go by a rubber band.. <rolls eyes>
I hate the fed gov.

 

[OldLady]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

 

[MisterBeale]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

 

[TNHarley]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

 

[OldLady]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

Supreme Court disagrees. Did it ever occur to you that for once you might be wrong?

 

[MisterBeale]

Sure, the Supreme court has never been fallible when interpreting the Constitution, has it?

 

[OldLady]

Sure, the Supreme court has never been fallible when interpreting the Constitution, has it?

Well, they know a lot more about the Constitution than you or TN. I say that with all respect, of course.

 

[TNHarley]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

Supreme Court disagrees. Did it ever occur to you that for once you might be wrong?

Doesnt mean they are right. Perhaps you can show the amendment that states guns can be restricted.

 

[OldLady]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

Supreme Court disagrees. Did it ever occur to you that for once you might be wrong?

Doesnt mean they are right. Perhaps you can show the amendment that states guns can be restricted.

Not goin' there.
Not likin' it and not thinking it's valid are two different things, and you are mixing them up.

 

[TNHarley]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

Supreme Court disagrees. Did it ever occur to you that for once you might be wrong?

Doesnt mean they are right. Perhaps you can show the amendment that states guns can be restricted.

Not goin' there.
Not likin' it and not thinking it's valid are two different things, and you are mixing them up.

So, basically, im not wrong. Maybe those activists couldnt read basic english

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is technically a Constitution issue. Not a law and justice system issue. Not unless anyone can find judicial review in Article III. Ahem.

Anyway...

''The appeal by the Plaintiffs against the BATFE in the bump stock ruling has been expedited. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the parties to submit briefs by March 4th of 2019.''

Continued - Bump Stock Case Expedited by Court of Appeals in DC

Judicial review can be found in both Articles III and VI. Ahem.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Rights are the sole purview of the people – government doesn’t have rights.

Government does have the authority to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – authority derived from the consent of those governed, as government acts at the behest of the people.

Rights come into play when the government (the people) err and enact measures contrary to Second Amendment case law – such as seeking to ban all handguns.

Given the fact the Supreme Court has never invalidated bans on owning machine guns – or bump stocks, for that matter – their regulation is perfectly appropriate and Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

Ban on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Yes, i am aware the constitution is way out there to you statists.

Supreme Court disagrees. Did it ever occur to you that for once you might be wrong?

Doesnt mean they are right. Perhaps you can show the amendment that states guns can be restricted.

Not goin' there.
Not likin' it and not thinking it's valid are two different things, and you are mixing them up.

Correct.

As for the article linked in the OP, the author of that article has no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s perfectly appropriate for regulatory agencies to interpret the laws as part of the process to implement those laws.

If the people disapprove of how an agency is implementing the law, they remain at liberty to petition Congress to amend the law or to file suit in court to oppose how the law is being implemented, such as this case.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, they know a lot more about the Constitution than you or TN.

Hey, can we ask em where we can find judicial review in Article III of the Constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The court writes that the first thing to do when interpreting a statute is to see if Congress has given clear guidance. If not, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Where Congress leaves something open for interpretation it is assumed they did so intentionally for the agency to fill the gap with their own knowledge and expertise. “Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” If there are conflicting policies that the agency has reconciled through their own expertise, the court will not disturb their agency’s resolution unless it is clear that Congress would not have taken the same course of action. Judges are not experts in any particular field, as an agency is.’

http://www.casebriefsummary.com/chevron-v-natural-resources-defense-council-inc/

The validity of Chevron, therefore, should not be at issue, as it’s perfectly appropriate and warranted that regulatory agencies be given deference by the courts to implement regulatory policy in good faith and in accordance with their knowledge and expertise, where Congress has not given clear guidance as how to implement that regulatory policy.

Rather, the courts should consider whether the banning of bump stocks is “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute” within the context of Chevron, and as authorized by the ruling.

 

[Dick Foster]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

The point is that each and every gun law in this nation is unconstitutional including the banning of automatic weapons. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

 

[OldLady]

If something is created for guns or ammo, banning it is unconstitutional imo. Dont matter what it is. The second is pretty clear.
However, if the opposite is true, does that mean we could be banned from speaking ill of the govt on the internet? Or phone calls?
Idk.. consistency is important.

Automatic weapons are prohibited. Why would a device that causes a gun to act like an automatic weapon be legal?
That is pretty clear to me.
Unless you don't believe the government has the right to ban machine guns, either. If that's true, we can't have a discussion because you're too far out there.

The point is that each and every gun law in this nation is unconstitutional including the banning of automatic weapons. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?

I think you're going to have to ask all the judges on the Supreme Court about that.