Chief Justice John Roberts Denies Gun Owners’ Request to Stay Ban on Bump Stocks

[Sniper 6,372]

How many still think the SCOTUS is going to save us. This should be your WAKE UP call.

....."Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has denied an emergency request by gun owners’ groups to temporarily stay the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks. The ban took effect at midnight Tuesday.

One more stay request is reported to be still pending with Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Unless the court intervenes, bump stocks—the devices that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire almost as quickly as machine guns—will be banned nationwide."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chief-justice-john-roberts-denies-gun-owners-request-to-stay-ban-on-bump-stocks

[bennj 215]

As far as I'm concerned, Roberts revealed his true colors with his decision on the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

[Bowling Ball 22]

1 hour ago, bennj said:

As far as I'm concerned, Roberts revealed his true colors with his decision on the Unaffordable Health Care Act.

There are rumors on the deep webs about him being blackmailed (sic?)....

 

[SJG 253]

Different issue.

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, Bowling Ball said:

There are rumors on the deep webs about him being blackmailed (sic?)....

 

Maybe he's worried about being "Scalia'ed" in his sleep?

You know, dying of natural causes without a forensic death investigation.

[remixer 1,645]

7 hours ago, Sniper said:

Maybe he's worried about being "Scalia'ed" in his sleep?

You know, dying of natural causes without a forensic death investigation.

Nothing worse then dying by pillow to the face.

[Sniper 6,372]

Well folks, the second Stay was denied too, so here's your writing on the wall, what's YOUR Plan "B":

The Supreme Court has declined to stop the Trump administration from enforcing its ban on "bump-stock" devices, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, urged the justices to deny the stay in the case, Gun Owners of America v. Barr, No. 18A963.

“The protection of the public and law enforcement officers from the proliferation of prohibited firearms is a bedrock foundation of federal firearms legislation,” he wrote, adding that the regulation “promotes that public interest by protecting the public from the dangers posed by machine guns prohibited by federal law.”

And now, as AP reports, Chief Justice John Roberts declined one request for the court to get involved on Tuesday and a second request was declined by the court on Thursday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-28/supreme-court-refuses-block-bump-stock-ban

[remixer 1,645]

I think the issue is that the bump stock thing is in ATF rules not Laws.... That might be the reason why...

 

[Sniper 6,372]

2 hours ago, remixer said:

I think the issue is that the bump stock thing is in ATF rules not Laws.... That might be the reason why...

So what? They kowtowed to the crying by a certain party to ban bump stocks after Las Vegas, and made a NEW rule.

....."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 long gun after a single pull of the trigger.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

The point being, they don't give a crap about "Will Not Be Infringed", and sway with the wind and the political heat. Trump rolled over and gave the Democrats what they wanted. 186K out of 300 MILLION posted comments. That's 0.0006% of the population.

That should make EVERYONE wake up!!

What's next on the list? Reduced magazines (oh, wait), telescoping stocks (oh, wait), flash hiders (oh,wait). How about banning semi-auto actions (New Zealand), more reduced magazines, ban handguns, etc....  it can continue, piece by piece.

What about Red Flag laws?

White House Endorses "Red Flag" Gun Confiscation

“We need to push along the ERPOs so that we have these red flag [gun confiscation] laws...this is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area.”

—William Barr, Attorney General Nominee 1/15/19

https://nationalgunrights.org/resources/news/white-house-endorses-red-flag-gun-confiscation/

Can you say "GUILTY until proven INNOCENT" with those laws?

Yeah, I know the normal response.... "Nobody I know owns a Bump Stock, so it doesn't matter if they're banned".....

 

[remixer 1,645]

I not disagreeing. Only stating on a reason the SC did not want to hear it...

 

[Underdog 1,593]

i am not  completely up on this.  What is the penalty for possessing one?  What was the due process of being reimbursed for having one?

My big concern is not about Bump Stocks but with the precedent of presidential power being set and also of it NOT being a law made by congress but rather by the ATF and their ability to set a penalty.  

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

i am not up completely on this.  What is the penalty for possessing one?  What was the due process of being reimbursed for having one?

It's a pretty nasty fine and jail term:

Donald Trump's Bump Stock Ban Turns Peaceful Gun Owners Into Felons by Fiat

The ban, which took effect this week, usurps congressional authority by rewriting an inconvenient law.

As of midnight on Tuesday, owners of "bump-stock-type devices" became felons, subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. That's a pretty nasty surprise for anyone who bought these products, which were repeatedly declared legal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) during the Bush and Obama administrations. It is especially unsettling because the law has not changed since the agency made that determination.

What happened instead is that the ATF, under orders from Donald Trump, reinterpreted the law to reach a diametrically opposed conclusion that is contrary to the plain meaning of the relevant statutes. Critics of presidential power grabs, regardless of how they feel about bump stocks or gun control more generally, should be troubled by this blatant usurpation of congressional authority.

The DOJ estimates that Americans own as many as 520,000 bump stocks.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/28/donald-trumps-bump-stock-ban-turns-peace

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

My big concern is not about Bump Stocks but with the precedent of presidential power being set and also of it NOT being a law made by congress but rather by the ATF and their ability to set a penalty.  

That's my issue too. Congress didn't vote and pass this law, knee jerk reactions to a minority group of people cause Trump to FORCE the ATF to revise the law. Really bad optics from our (so called)  2A friendly President.

That opens the door for him to push for any other bans, based on political pressure.

[Underdog 1,593]

Or  future POTUS

[Underdog 1,593]

If it is true and its the same John Roberts that was on Epstein's logs?  It is no wonder that Schumer rubber-stamped a "conservative" Chief Justice if there are those kind of tentacles.  Does anybody feel that there might be a compromising effect, here?   If it is verified that he was on the log list it would appear that he is too compromised to go on and maybe Trump should appoint someone else...

 

[WP22 1,558]

37 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Is this the same Chief Justice Roberts that was on Epstein's logs?

You gotta give us the sauce for that.

[Sniper 6,372]

49 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Is this the same Chief Justice Roberts that was on Epstein's logs?  It is no wonder that Schumer rubber-stamped a "conservative" Chief Justice if there are those kind of tentacles.  Does anybody feel that there might be a compromising effect, here?

It was widely speculated that someone had some dirt on Roberts, and that's why he rolled over for the Dems with Obamacare. This might have been it.

[Underdog 1,593]

The source that I read it from doesn't seem to be up anymore.  Maybe it was removed, or maybe it is untrue.

[Maksim 1,504]

Would not be surprised.

In any case, anyone have updates on the bump stock lawsuits?  Have not really followed it in a while.