|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
490
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics39,490
Posts562,005
Members14,584
| |
Most Online9,918
Jul 28th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567 |
It doesn't matter which President "forced them to do it." What matters is SCOTUS correctly ruled that unelected, political hacks and federal employees do not make or pass laws. Oh yes it does, especially when he has publicly vowed to set aside the Constitution on the first day in office, if elected. Yeah, it matters a whole bunch.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/ ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
|
|
1 member likes this:
Recoil Rob |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 816 Likes: 65
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 816 Likes: 65 |
Yes, that illegitimate, rogue, "Trump Court" sure did his bidding on that ruling...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567 |
Yes, that illegitimate, rogue, "Trump Court" sure did his bidding on that ruling... Ah, no, but your sense of denial is remarkable. In fact, "his" court countered his bidding - since he was the reason behind the BATF rule. Amazing is it not?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 816 Likes: 65
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 816 Likes: 65 |
I'm not in denial about anything. That was my point, for all the blather about a "Trump Court" they ruled against the ban that he ordered.
As a believer in the Constitution (and someone who served to support and defend it) I accept decisions made by the court, even if I don't agree.
|
|
1 member likes this:
PhysDoc |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,511 Likes: 567 |
I'm not in denial about anything. That was my point, for all the blather about a "Trump Court" they ruled against the ban that he ordered.
As a believer in the Constitution (and someone who served to support and defend it) I accept decisions made by the court, even if I don't agree. Indeed. Then, you must not be Trump supporter, I take it. What do you think with Trump's public claim that he will put aside the constitution on Day 1?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,134 Likes: 124
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,134 Likes: 124 |
lets go back to the first post of this thread...
The Supreme Court ruled against the bump stock ban, declaring that the BATF & Explosives exceeded it's authority when it banned the devices on the grounds that they convert otherwise legal semi-automatic weapons into illegal machine guns.
specifically, the firearms act of 1934 defines what is a machine gun...
Machine guns
"any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
the above does not include bump stocks...
if we the people decide that firearms equipped with bump stocks are indeed machineguns, then we the people begin the process of changing the law, by lobbying our elected Congress to amend the firearms act of 1934 to include firearms equipped with bump stocks ...
other methods of banning bump stocks at the federal level, such as by executive decree or judicial ruling are clearly a violation of the constitution, where it clearly states that Congress has the sole power to make federal law...
federal executive branch agencies, such as the atf, only have the authority to enforce federal law and certainly do not have the power to amend federal law...
and the president has no authority to in effect amend federal law...
trumps advisers should have advised him of this fact...
perhaps they did...and he being trump ignored them in the name of expediency?
so here we are years later, with an issue that was resolved, but now it is unresolved because it was addressed so inappropriately...
but then, watts new?
Last edited by ed good; 06/19/24 02:51 PM.
keep it simple and keep it safe...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582 Likes: 48
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582 Likes: 48 |
The only one I have shot was on a Ruger 10/22 and it dd not work that good. It produced some laughs and giggles when it worked, but it was fussy about ammo and how you shouldered it.
The same fella had an AR with a strange trigger. It would (obviously) fire when you pulled the trigger, but it would fire again when you released the trigger. The safety was like a full auto, and you could use it normal semi-auto or the double tap. More practical than the bump and nearly as fast. But the trigger pull very much sucked in either mode so just another way to wreck a rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,708 Likes: 346
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,708 Likes: 346 |
I'm not in denial about anything. That was my point, for all the blather about a "Trump Court" they ruled against the ban that he ordered.
As a believer in the Constitution (and someone who served to support and defend it) I accept decisions made by the court, even if I don't agree. Indeed. Then, you must not be Trump supporter, I take it. What do you think with Trump's public claim that he will put aside the constitution on Day 1? Cute, the philosopher’s philosopher. We know it takes all your guy can muster, to face the correct direction during his three minutes a day public. But, we all know there are plenty of law on the books, just professorial hypocrisy, when it comes to failure to enforce those laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,523 Likes: 162
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,523 Likes: 162 |
.
Last edited by Jimmy W; 10/10/24 10:21 PM.
|
|
1 member likes this:
ithaca1 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2024
Posts: 17 Likes: 3
Boxlock
|
|
Boxlock
Joined: May 2024
Posts: 17 Likes: 3 |
I read that Donald Trump tried to get the Supreme Court to ban the bump stock and make it illegal under law. But when he filled out the paperwork, he did not fill it out properly for some reason, and his request was rejected by the Supreme Court because of that reason. Where is this procedure described in the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
|
