Tyranny of the ATF

[Seran]

What "things have changed" so dramatically that his complete 180 on that position should have changed 40 years later?

And that quote is going on 40 years.. because that old fuck has been suckling on the teet of government for his entire adult life.

TERM

LIMITS

The elevating number of school shootings
The elevating number of mass shootings
The fact the number of murders committed per year with a firearm has doubled since then? Take your pick.

[Methais]

Exciting week for the Biden Administration! The Supreme Court has lifted a stay against federal rules on ghost guns and for California, the Court of Appeals has upheld California laws on high capacity magazines.

lol @ you being stupid as fuck

[Suppressed Poet]

Hopefully he'll be held accountable for his reversal on positions. Sure the quote is approaching forty years old and things have changed, but to be on the record saying you didn't think gun control legislations was needed and that regulations would have no meaningful impact on crime since criminals will always be able to get guns is in direct conflict with his current position.

In all fairness, back then the two parties found more compromise & Democrats didn’t have quite the staunch anti-2nd Amendment stance they do now.

The key word in gun control is control. It’s not about saving lives.

[Parkbandit]

The elevating number of school shootings
The elevating number of mass shootings
The fact the number of murders committed per year with a firearm has doubled since then? Take your pick.

So, we have a mental illness problem in this country.

I agree.

What will a bump stock ban or a high capacity magazine ban do specifically to address our mental health issues?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'd like to see those graphs as a percent of gun owning age population.

[Suppressed Poet]

SCOTUS agreed to hear a case on the federal bump stock ban. The real issue behind this case is the ATF reinterpretations of existing legislation & a bureaucracy creating their own rules (which seem to change frequently) without any legislation from Congress. The decision of this case should have wide reaching implications that go beyond bump stocks (pistol brace rule, forced reset triggers, homemade firearms aka “ghost guns”, and more come to mind).

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...ks-2023-11-03/

[Seran]

SCOTUS agreed to hear a case on the federal bump stock ban. The real issue behind this case is the ATF reinterpretations of existing legislation & a bureaucracy creating their own rules (which seem to change frequently) without any legislation from Congress. The decision of this case should have wide reaching implications that go beyond bump stocks (pistol brace rule, forced reset triggers, homemade firearms aka “ghost guns”, and more come to mind).

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...ks-2023-11-03/

It'll be an interesting case result to read once it is heard. Given prior rulings upholding some of the ATFs decisions, I would venture to say the Supreme Court is aware that they're working within their scope under federal law and impose such regulations/rules that fall within their derived authority.

[Suppressed Poet]

It'll be an interesting case result to read once it is heard. Given prior rulings upholding some of the ATFs decisions, I would venture to say the Supreme Court is aware that they're working within their scope under federal law and impose such regulations/rules that fall within their derived authority.

I don’t think they would have agreed to take on the case unless the majority plans to overturn it, but we’ll see in time. Recent historical SCOTUS rulings on gun issues speak for themselves.

Edit: Also the ATF is working beyond their scope. They are a bureaucracy and cannot create new laws. The age of chevron deference is over with the prior ruling against the EPA. I expect the ATF to get their tushy spanked hard.

[Seran]

I don’t think they would have agreed to take on the case unless the majority plans to overturn it, but we’ll see in time. Recent historical SCOTUS rulings on gun issues speak for themselves.

Edit: Also the ATF is working beyond their scope. They are a bureaucracy and cannot create new laws. The age of chevron deference is over with the prior ruling against the EPA. I expect the ATF to get their tushy spanked hard.

I may be living in some alternate world, but in 2021 the Supreme Court declined to take up an appeal on the tenth circuit ruling upholding the ATFs bump stock rule. Now here we are in 2023 and a similar case is being heard, but the Supreme Court slapped the hand of an appeals court trying to put a stay on ATF enforcement against ghost guns. I'd say the issue is ripe to be heard and they'll uphold the bump stock decision they previously made.

There are no 'new laws' being made. Firearm accessories which are illegal under existing federal law were pointed out as illegal, regardless of the minor construction changes, or attempts to circumvent via name changes. How precisely do you expect federal law to be upheld if not for the Executive Branch through it's jurisdictional agencies doing so?

Pointing out the Chevron/Sackett decision.. okay. Sackett merely clarifies that landowners have the right to seek judicial review of agency decisions under the Clean Water Act. It doesn't indicate a party would prevail under such an action.

[Suppressed Poet]

I may be living in some alternate world, but in 2021 the Supreme Court declined to take up an appeal on the tenth circuit ruling upholding the ATFs bump stock rule. Now here we are in 2023 and a similar case is being heard, but the Supreme Court slapped the hand of an appeals court trying to put a stay on ATF enforcement against ghost guns. I'd say the issue is ripe to be heard and they'll uphold the bump stock decision they previously made.

There are no 'new laws' being made. Firearm accessories which are illegal under existing federal law were pointed out as illegal, regardless of the minor construction changes, or attempts to circumvent via name changes. How precisely do you expect federal law to be upheld if not for the Executive Branch through it's jurisdictional agencies doing so?

Pointing out the Chevron/Sackett decision.. okay. Sackett merely clarifies that landowners have the right to seek judicial review of agency decisions under the Clean Water Act. It doesn't indicate a party would prevail under such an action.

You are entitled to your opinion even if it’s completely wrong. We’ll both get to see what happens when SCOTUS decides this case.