https://www.theblaze.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-bump-stock-ban?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

does that o us any good in new jersey? if it does.....does anyone really wanna blow through ammo that fast right now?

Any win is a win. Esp with the current Administration being pushed/hinting at using EO to further restrict law abiding citizens. This case can be used as a precedent for others.  

24 minutes ago, kc17 said:

Esp with the current Administration being pushed/hinting at using EO to further restrict law abiding citizens. This case can be used as a precedent for others.  

Exactly what I was thinking when I read it. Will they also apply it to Biden's EO's?

4 minutes ago, Sniper said:

Exactly what I was thinking when I read it. Will they also apply it to Biden's EO's?

I didn't dig deep enough. Was it struck down because it was an EO, because it violated 5A and/or 14A, another reason or combination. Either way, I still see it as a positive. 

 

29 minutes ago, kc17 said:

I didn't dig deep enough. Was it struck down because it was an EO, because it violated 5A and/or 14A, another reason or combination. Either way, I still see it as a positive. 

 

The court ruled, basically, that the government can't extend existing law by exploiting previous "ambiguously written" law.

In this case, the DOJ tried to extend the ban on machine guns by reclassifying anything with a bump stock as machine gun.  

I have no interest in bump stocks . . . But, a win is a win.

Yes - they tried to reclassify it as a Machine gun - but the definition of a machine gun exists and they said the Bump Stock ban does not meet the definition of a MG.

8 minutes ago, Krdshrk said:

Yes - they tried to reclassify it as a Machine gun - but the definition of a machine gun exists and they said the Bump Stock ban does not meet the definition of a MG.

They did NOT say that a bump stock doesn't meet the definition.  They said that the definition couldn't be extended to cover bump stocks. 

It's a small difference but a significant one on the whole.

 

33 minutes ago, EdF said:

They did NOT say that a bump stock doesn't meet the definition.  They said that the definition couldn't be extended to cover bump stocks. 

It's a small difference but a significant one on the whole.

 

Hopefully ATF will stay in it's F'n lane and stop allowing the executive branch to illegally make laws. 

12 hours ago, ChrisJM981 said:

Hopefully ATF will stay in it's F'n lane and stop allowing the executive branch to illegally make laws. 

Remember . . . The ATF is part of the Executive Branch . . . 

On 3/29/2021 at 3:37 PM, 1LtCAP said:

does that o us any good in new jersey?

I'd think not. If I we're in the anti-gun/Constitution club of NJ (legislatures), I'd just claim it moves in and out it's a collapsible stock. They already make far more overreaching claims on less substantiated issues.