Supreme Court won't hear challenge to ban on bump stocks

[Sniper 6,372]

I thought two new conservative judges were suppose to HELP us???

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a challenge to the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks, a rapid-fire device used in the 2017 mass killing of 59 people gunned down in Las Vegas.

The dispute had more to do with the federal government's decision-making process than the weapons ban itself. Challengers contended lower courts allowed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives too much leeway to impose the ban without greater congressional input.

The Supreme Court refused last year to upend the ban on bump stocks, a device that allows rifles to mimic automatic weapons. The ban prohibits owning, buying, selling or "otherwise transferring" bump stocks. 

In February 2018, President Donald Trump instructed the attorney general to regulate bump stocks' use, and 10 months later, Justice Department officials issued the ban, giving owners 90 days to either turn bump stocks over to federal agents or melt, shred or crush them. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/02/bump-stock-ban-supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-agency-authority/4500462002/

[Sniper 6,372]

But, we know who actual has rights in the country....  the ILLEGALS  

Supreme Court to consider rights of some asylum seekers

The Supreme Court will consider a major case Monday concerning the rights of some asylum seekers to challenge their expedited removal.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse an opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that would allow some individuals who have been denied asylum the opportunity to make a claim in federal court. If the opinion stands, it could open the courthouse doors to more asylum seekers.

"Here the Court must decide whether newly arrived immigrants have the same right to challenge their detention in federal court as U.S. citizens," he said. Yale-Loehr noted that nearly half of all removals from the United States occur through expedited removal. "If the Court holds that the Constitution applies to arriving immigrants, the number of such deportations will surely decrease," he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/02/politics/supreme-court-rights-of-asylum-seekers/index.html

[voyager9 3,434]

Wasn’t the court deciding on whether to hear the appeal to the injunction?  Not the merits of the ban itself.  That is still working through the lower court. 

[ChrisJM981 924]

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a four-page statement on Monday saying he disagreed with lower courts applying Chevron deference in the case — in part because both parties, including the ATF, said it didn't apply.

"The court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government. That was mistaken," Gorsuch wrote.

Nonetheless, Gorsuch agreed that the Supreme Court should pass on the case for now while lower courts further consider the bump stock ban in this and other cases.

[ChrisJM981 924]

They didn't like the arguement presented. It has to be the perfect case otherwise Chief Justice Flip Flop will be an issue.