July 7, 2024
Subscribe
The Real Crime Diary Blog Legal and Courtroom The Supreme Court Invalidates the Bump Stock Ban: What Does This Mean for Gun Laws and Executive Orders?
Legal and Courtroom

The Supreme Court Invalidates the Bump Stock Ban: What Does This Mean for Gun Laws and Executive Orders?

  • by
  • June 17, 2024
  • 6 Comments
  • Less than a minute
  • 11 Views
  • 3 weeks ago



For a complimentary trial at The Dispatch, click here:

Join writer Jake Fogleman and myself as we delve into the Supreme Court’s latest ruling declaring the ATF’s bump stock ban illegal. We explore the potential implications for President Biden’s gun-related executive actions and the stance of the Justices on machine gun restrictions. Additionally, we examine the intriguing dynamics surrounding a gun tax proposition awaiting Colorado voters this autumn and recap my attendance at the National Journalism Center’s range day.

—-
Segments
00:00 Introduction
00:33 SCOTUS Decision on ATF Ban
26:33 Ruling on Pistol Brace Regulation
27:47 Gun Tax Referendum for Colorado Voters
32:08 Highlights from NJC Range Day
37:37 Conclusion

source

Tags:

Share This Post:

6 Comments

  • Reply
    @DomoArigatoRobot0 June 17, 2024

    Thank you, The Reload. I'm very glad you went over the political fact that machine guns are very probably off the SCOTUS table. I've resigned my self politically to that faraway goal.

    Still, plenty of battles worth fighting at the federal and states' levels, including the upcoming Colorado excise tax referendum. Even if moderate CO lefties feel warm and fuzzy about magazine limits, UBCs, "red flags", et. al., it is abhorrent and #UnAmerican To #TaxOneself

  • Reply
    @DomoArigatoRobot0 June 17, 2024

    Reply to​ @jongruen7854 The point of governments is to deter and punish criminal activity, whether it's an LV Mandalay or an Enron #GovernmentANecessaryEvil #RepealTheNFA

  • Reply
    @MrPoserina June 17, 2024

    The problem is that SCOTUS rules in a way that if they can avoid a constitutional question, they will. In the current Cargill case, they didn’t need to get to the constitutional question, because they were able to throw the rule out based on the rule being in conflict with the written law they were interpreting.

  • Reply
    @PoormansMachineGun June 17, 2024

    Since rate of fire has nothing to do with the statutory definition of a machine gun. How would a machine gun be considered "dangerous and unusual" without considering ROF? The statute implies that the function of the trigger only be considered when determining what is a machine gun. This win with bump stocks, and a future win in an "assault weapons" case would make it harder for the SC to uphold a ban on machine guns.

  • Reply
    @PoormansMachineGun June 17, 2024

    Bump Stocks, Forced Reset Triggers, and even my rubber band trick would have never been invented had the Hughes Amendment not been adopted. Repealing the Hughes Amendment would render bump stocks and other rapid fire devices obsolete!

  • Reply
    @mgabriel2636 June 17, 2024

    I think the '86 Amendment that made new machine guns illegal was the Hughes Amendment, not Lautenberg @ 4:17. Anyway, thank you for the coverage, FRTs next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X
Enable Notifications OK No thanks
Verified by MonsterInsights