Which was still not a Congressional LAW.
You seem to be missing the point here....
Trump COULD HAVE pressed Congress to act. HE DID NOT.
Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Which was still not a Congressional LAW.
You seem to be missing the point here....
Trump COULD HAVE pressed Congress to act. HE DID NOT.
And yet you've been yammering on about executive orders. Don't double down on stupidity. While it is certainly true that an executive plays a role in the legislative process, funnily enough - and perhaps you've seen this before - legislative bodies have wills of their own. For example, when we were in the middle of our budgetary stupidity some months ago, i seem to recall a lot of dumping on the Speaker, rather than dumping on the senate, or the president, for legislation not getting done. Sure, all parties play a role, which is to say that no one is to blame. Especially when they're not acting by EO. For example, just last year, S.1909 went nowhere. Whose fault is that?
PS - QED
On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to dedicate all available resources to… propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” In response to that direction the Department reviewed more than 186,000 public comments and made the decision to make clear that the term “machinegun” as used in the National Firearms Act (NFA), as amended, and Gun Control Act (GCA), as amended, includes all bump-stock-type devices that harness recoil energy to facilitate the continuous operation of a semiautomatic firearm after a single pull of the trigger.
AGAIN: NOT A LAW
Geez...you think that was because a SMALL MINORITY in that chamber was fouling up the process?
A minority which was not even a majority representation of their own PARTY?
Yet, you seem ok with continuing to elect those idiots. Why is that?
and again, not what was challenged. not remotely. i'll just assume you'd have rather the AG did nothing in light of congressional inaction
a small minority which could have easily been overcome by a small minority of the minority party, with the support of the president, finding the middle ground to get things done. See how this works?
Congress won't do their job until you put in term limits. Even then...it might be a stretch. But folks that think this is a "game" for them add money to their pockets......the can roast in hell left or right.
Yes; it was what was challenged.
SC rejected this interpretation of what constituted a "machine gun".
You simply want to ignore that Trump did nothing to get an updated law passed; that requires leadership and negotiation, neither of which he was capable of.
Clarence Thomas must have earned numerous luxury getaway trips for his nutty majority opinion!
So now the police are up against machine guns, but you can't call them machine guns, OK, SCOTUS.
And that law will be challenged and end up before SCOTUS again just like Roe v. Wade was repeatedly challenged.
Wash, rinse repeat.
Nbcnews has an article out today saying that Trump was counting on SCOTUS shooting the ban down.
Sotomayor, take out politics, is so much more intelligent and selfless than the Thomas, Alito, Boof, etc.
I am going to suggest we revise the constitution that nobody should be allowed on the Supreme Court without getting dirty with the nuts and bolts of things (how? I don't know)
These folks are clearly pissed off that only congress has been able to grift off their jobs.
I actually had a dream last night where I called out Roberts for not standing up against the cons. (Weird, I know)
I am going to suggest we revise the constitution that nobody should be allowed on the Supreme Court without getting dirty with the nuts and bolts of things (how? I don't know)
These folks are clearly pissed off that only congress has been able to grift off their jobs.
I actually had a dream last night where I called out Roberts for not standing up against the cons. (Weird, I know)
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that basic requirements could be added, such as so many years on the bench, before being eligible for SC.
I'm not saying age thing. I just don't think this right wing court has any idea whatsoever about the consequences of their decisions. I don't know if Justice Thomas ever sired a child. I'm guessing not. But if he had a child murdered in Las Vegas by a bump-stocker, he might feel different. \
Last edited:
Yep
Trump could have called for this, and pressed the GOP in Congress to do it.
He did not.
Yep
Clarence and his buddies will find a way to make that "unconstitutional", as well.
It was an "agency regulation" that was put in play by Trump; whatever you want to call that. I posted that quote for you, which was from temp-AG Matt Whittaker.
SCOTUS is so Corrupted.Whoopsy-Daisy...looks like Clarence and the gang basically ignored statutory language here...
JFC
Thank you Mitch McConnel.
PhQ.
He was when the Vegas shootings happened, and there was public support for a legislative ban on bump stocks...
You forget about that bill he did negotiate with republicans with, and trump killed?
And there isn't public support now? Are you saying that Biden is ineffective as president?
It was pretty much across the board right after the massacre (which is what usually happens).
Attention wanes 7 years later, because people forget how bad it actually was.
Kind of like the 1/6 insurrection. And the next one, MAGAs will probably bring their "legal" bump stocks.
Apparently, gun website propaganda is now a stand-in for "legal precedent"....
Sounds like NBC must have Joes Place as their source.
