Supreme Court rejects bid from gun rights groups to delay bump stock ban

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

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]

1. You know we really need to amend the Second Amendment if we want to truly

get this whole gun issue resolved finally rather than arguing about it all the time.

[Canoe52]

2. Nah, we have the second amendment and still ban weapons that have a high killing capacity

Just add all the super killing machines to the list. Nobody’s 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 won’t last too long and we can send them thoughts and prayers while we celebrate with all those who didn’t end up dieing from gun violence.

[Kaleva]

3. Owning a machine gun or a bazooka is legal.

[Canoe52]

7. Shows you what I know...

[LiberalArkie]

4. I am ok as long as they don't ban my nuclear missile in the back yard.

[Mr.Bill]

5. I have nuclear technology but I only use it

to power my stereo.

[LiberalArkie]

6. That I need to look into. Something I can power my missile and house with. I just can't find a

Mr. Fusion or flux capacitor anywhere.

[EX500rider]

19. Of course everyone wants to ban "assault rifles" but all rifles kill less then 400 Americans a yr,

...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]

21. Nice use of stats, not. How easy is it to kill 58 people from 32 stories up in 10 minutes

with a pistol?

[EX500rider]

23. So 7,000+ people killed by pistols no big deal..but 400+- is somehow worse?

.....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]

24. And use of bad logic is even worse than misuse of statistics.

[EX500rider]

25. Yes it is & emotional bad logic even worse. nt

[Canoe52]

29. You're the expert, obviously.

[EX500rider]

33. "misuse of statistics"

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]

8. 2A allows pretty much any gun restriction you probably want

Short of an all out ban of all guns. Name a law - bet you it is perfectly constitutional.

[cstanleytech]

9. SCOTUS would and has disagreed at times and kicked a number of laws out as violating

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]

10. Have you read Heller? Lays it out in black and white.

In any case, if we can’t pass gun control that is constitutional what makes you think a law amending the 2A will pass. Don’t forget it has the added burden of requiring 38 states to approve the change. Not going to happen.

[cstanleytech]

11. I never said I thought it would pass rather I am simply saying amending the 2nd is

really the best way to end alot of the arguing over the whole gun issue from both sides.

[sarisataka]

12. What laws have they kicked out

as violating the 2nd?

[cstanleytech]

13. Off the top of my head the most recent is the one regarding the ban on

high-capacity gun magazines in California.

[sarisataka]

14. That wasn't SCOTUS

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]

17. Want to bet they will agree with the ruling?

[sarisataka]

31. Quite possibly,

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]

18. Banning all handguns

That would almost certainly be struck down.

[hack89]

22. Right. Owning a hand gun is the only right explicitly protected by the 2A

According to Heller.

[Permanut]

15. So that gun grabber Trump..

is chipping away at our gun rights. Never happened under Obama. Wait, do I have that backwards?

[Maxheader]

16. I thought appeals to the supremes was a lengthy, time consuming..

action. How do these gun toadys get in front of them so quickly?.

[hack89]

27. It is easy to petition the SC

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]

20. A simple law change

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]

28. Solutions grounded in political, legal and cultural reality are more likely to succeed

Yours is not.

[hack89]

30. You clearly do not understand the US legal system

The Bill of Rights sit at the pinnacle of that system. It can't be ignored.

[EX500rider]

32. "Who has a muzzle loader, with powder and shot ready at home for when the British invade?"

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?

[Hoyt]

26. I feel so sorry for poor, pitiful, ignorant white wing gun-strokers. n/t