UPDATE: "We have the third and final ruling of the day, in Garland v. Cargill, the bumpstock case. It is by Justice Thomas, and the vote is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.... The question in this case is whether a bumpstock (an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger to fire very quickly) converts the rifle into a machinegun. The court holds that it does not."
The second case was Campos-Chaves v. Garland. 5-4. "The court holds that the non-citizens in this case received adequate notice of the removal hearings that they missed and at which they were ordered removed, so that they can't seek rescission of their removal orders (issued in their absence) on the basis of defective notice.
The first case was US Trustee v. John Q Hammons. "The court held that the a statute violated the Bankruptcy Code because it allowed different fees for Ch 11 debtors depending on where they filed their cases. The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees. This is a victory for the government."
The second case was Campos-Chaves v. Garland. 5-4. "The court holds that the non-citizens in this case received adequate notice of the removal hearings that they missed and at which they were ordered removed, so that they can't seek rescission of their removal orders (issued in their absence) on the basis of defective notice.
The first case was US Trustee v. John Q Hammons. "The court held that the a statute violated the Bankruptcy Code because it allowed different fees for Ch 11 debtors depending on where they filed their cases. The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees. This is a victory for the government."
Posts
43 comments:
Will progressives get their wish to allow open season on arresting former executives [and their employees] for crimes committed as official acts? I heard AG Garland is under contempt and his fellow DoJ attorneys are not prosecuting him. That’s a lot of crimes right there.
Have to laugh that Justice Jackson's dissent in the immigration case, arguing that it's okay to skip your hearing if you got notice via two documents instead of one, got as many as four votes.
Bump stocks are for fun. They are not tactically useful in any way. No serious shooter going into a combat situation would ever use such a thing.
If a mass shooter uses a bump stock it would save lives.
If a mass shooter uses a bump stock it would save lives.
You mean like in Las Vegas?
Thomas: "NFA? I'm pretty sure that stands for 'No Fucking Authority'!"
Gotta love the headline at CNN:
Supreme Court strikes down Trump-approved ban on bump stocks
One round per pull of the trigger. As per the legislation. Screw you anti-gunners.
This seals the deal for forced-reset triggers like the FRT-15 and others. The designers and mechanics followed the exact letter of the law...one round per pull of the trigger.
Engineers are smarter than lawyers and legislators. Pass illegal and unconstitutional legislation like the 86 NFA and smart men will find a way around it.
If they won't follow the spirit of the law, we'll follow the letter.
One round per pull of the trigger. As per the legislation.
Yet three justices are so anti-constitution that they voted to uphold this crazy ban. Bumpstocks are unsafe and for people who are unserious about gun safety. Perhaps the ATF could enforce a rule they be made DayGlo pink so the idiots are easy to spot at a range. Of course, ranges could have, and I believe some do, that stocks that allow rapid firing are not allowed.
But really, what part of the black letter law describing "automatic" do these people not understand?
You mean like in Las Vegas?
You have no idea what actually happened in Las Vegas. Why has the FBI not even solved that case? Any thoughts Fredo?
On the plus side they didn't ban F-15's.
A bit off topic, I find it interesting how many foreign countries are flying our fighter jets.
A bit off topic, I find it interesting how many foreign countries are flying our fighter jets.
Not that surprising. Designing and building a fighter is an expensive and difficult process, and it's far easier to simply buy from abroad. The Cold War meant that most people ended up becoming loyal to one "brand" or another, the same way suburban dads pick a brand of power tool. The US built really good fighters, and offering them to third parties for a modest price was a good way to build loyalty and influence those governments.
You have no idea what actually happened in Las Vegas. Why has the FBI not even solved that case? Any thoughts Fredo?
I would really like to know what insight you have on the Las Vegas shooting. Personally, I think Bro Country pushed him over the edge, you can only take so many songs about your love for chicks, beer and pickup trucks (not necessarily in that order).
All split decisions with different line-ups. Only gun case the expected 6-3 ideological split.
Rule change on bump stock followed its terrible use by the mass shooter at Mandalay Bay.
no it's called reading the law properly, not as you wish it would be,
how did he amass such an arsenal, of course we aren't told,
Note to April: Trump was obviously wrong on the issue and the law when he vowed to have the ATF ban bump-stocks. People who respect and understand the Second Amendment wouldn't do that unless seriously mistaken. Let's hope he learns from that first term mistake as he has about others like (cough cough) personnel choices. Not one conservative here, to my knowledge, praised the man for his stand on the issue. Maybe you should write this down in your diary.
Interesting take from @MayMailman on X:
Today, every R-appointed Justice ruled against the legality of a Trump policy and every D-appointed Justice ruled for it. It happens!
Following up on May Mailman's take, we may soon see a lot of conservatives siding with Hunter and his legal team as they challenge that form on 2nd Amendment grounds. His Dad can't agree with him, unless you take seriously Joe's insistence that us yay-hoos "need F-15s" (and sure I'd take one, why not) to counter a tyrannical government, based on Joe's laughably inept reading of the 2A. But many of us on the right side do believe that form is too intrusive and face it, what other rights under the Bill of Rights are subject to so many bureaucratic roadblocks and delays just to exercise as written? None. Most are interpreted far loosely than as written, but not the 2A because this government doesn't trust the citizens who hold those rights.
And Hunter just proved how easy it is to get around some bureaucratic roadblocks: Lie. If he hadn't written a "tell-all" book about himself and then narrated it he would have got away clean, scot free like an al queda member at the southern border.
The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees.
Headline: Supreme Court Rules Against Reparations.
@Frederson: If a mass shooter uses a bump stock it would save lives.
You mean like in Las Vegas?
Yes, like in Las Vegas. If he had used a normal stock with good optics and well-aimed fire, instead of spray-and-pray with a bump stock, there would have been more deaths and fewer non-lethal injuries or clean misses. The things are useless except for Walter Mitty types who want to pretend they are shooting a real submachine gun.
Even the real thing is seldom used these days. The military has figured out that non-belt-fed automatic fire by individual riflemen is a huge waste of ammunition and an impediment to accurate aim. Sustained automatic fire is also hard on the barrel and other components.
It is worth having full-auto mode available if your unit is ambushed, or in a complete rout when your position is about to be overrun, or occasionally when clearing a building or trench. Suppressive fire during maneuvers to get grenades or mortars on target is usually the responsibility of a squad machine gunner carrying a belt-fed light machine gun, but might be needed if he or the gun is out of commission. Otherwise the average infantryman is shooting aimed fire in semi-automatic mode. There are soldiers who finish their enlistments without ever having fired their rifle in automatic mode except on the practice range.
I said: A bit off topic, I find it interesting how many foreign countries are flying our fighter jets.
Mr Wibble responds: "Not that surprising. Designing and building a fighter is an expensive and difficult process, and it's far easier to simply buy from abroad. The Cold War meant that most people ended up becoming loyal to one "brand" or another, the same way suburban dads pick a brand of power tool. The US built really good fighters, and offering them to third parties for a modest price was a good way to build loyalty and influence those governments."
My point(s), which can be mysterious at times, is that our beloved walking cadaver president has threatened to use F-15's (or F-16's) on the US citizenry who have been relegated to using mere A-15's. But he and his predecessors seem to be all-in on selling these fighters to foreigners or worse leaving weapons of war in Afghanistan.
Freder Frederson said...
If a mass shooter uses a bump stock it would save lives.
You mean like in Las Vegas?
Exactly.
The shooter was sitting in a room firing for an hour at a giant crowd of people at ~400 meters and he killed 50 something people.
The bump stock obviously reduced his accuracy and forced him to constantly reload.
What I find interesting about your post is that your think your really stupid and ignorant rhetorical question was in any way an intelligent rebuttal to my statement.
https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/1801635542771093755
"Yes, like in Las Vegas. If he had used a normal stock with good optics and well-aimed fire, instead of spray-and-pray with a bump stock, there would have been more deaths and fewer non-lethal injuries or clean misses. The things are useless except for Walter Mitty types who want to pretend they are shooting a real submachine gun.
Even the real thing is seldom used these days. The military has figured out that non-belt-fed automatic fire by individual riflemen is a huge waste of ammunition and an impediment to accurate aim. Sustained automatic fire is also hard on the barrel and other components."
Can confirm. You use full-auto for suppression and breaking contact in an ambush. Semi-auto fire on a modern military weapon is so rapid anyway that stringing shots back-to-back at speeds relative to FA is possible anyway. Furthermore, weapons designed for FA are typically belt-fed and open-bolt to aid in cooling and to reduce the likelihood of 'cook-offs'.
Long story short, FA vs. Semi wouldn't have made a difference on a MASSIVE area target at half a klick. It is unfortunate because in hind-sight the appropriate thing the cops should've done would've been to locate the fucking 'sniper' and suppress him massively, even with pistols, to force him to either cease fire or relocate. Stop him from shooting, THEN search the hotel and destroy him.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
One round per pull of the trigger. As per the legislation.
Yet three justices are so anti-constitution that they voted to uphold this crazy ban. Bumpstocks are unsafe and for people who are unserious about gun safety. Perhaps the ATF could enforce a rule they be made DayGlo pink so the idiots are easy to spot at a range. Of course, ranges could have, and I believe some do, that stocks that allow rapid firing are not allowed.
But really, what part of the black letter law describing "automatic" do these people not understand?
Emphasis added in Mike quote.
This was not, is not, never was, a "Constitutional" case. It is a statutory interpretation and regulatory law case.
About 14 states have alrady banned bump stocks, and there has been no successful 2A challenge to those bans. Congress could act to ban/limit/tax bump stocks, as they have with more traditionally-understood machine guns. Congress could do that, or else Democrats could introduce such legislation, and have it voted down by Republicans, and then we can vote on the next Congress.
Kudos, Freder Frederson for "Las Vegas."
there wasn't a single solitary target, compare that with the Lee Child story, 'one shot' where the villains have one target, but they fire at a random assortment, of persons,
Yet another "stir the shit" non-value-added comment by Michigan "election lawyer" Chuckster. Chuckie baby, don't you ever change, unless you change your screen name first to "Chuckles".
Freder. You dumbass. Readering is right up there with you.
Bump stocks are a gimmick. Uncontrolled fire where you're lucky if you hit anything.
“ Blogger RideSpaceMountain said...
This seals the deal for forced-reset triggers like the FRT-15 and others. The designers and mechanics followed the exact letter of the law...one round per pull of the trigger.
Engineers are smarter than lawyers and legislators. Pass illegal and unconstitutional legislation like the 86 NFA and smart men will find a way around it.
If they won't follow the spirit of the law, we'll follow the letter.”
The market interprets stupidity as damage and routes around it.
Yes, I wrote, "...three justices are so anti-constitution that they voted to uphold this crazy ban."
This was not, is not, never was, a "Constitutional" case.
You miscomprehended my statement. The three Justices are anti-Constitutional because they want to nullify the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't matter to them, IMO, whether the ATF exceeded its authority to make a rule or enforce one this way. They don't believe in the Constitution as plainly written.
The issue here is that executive branch cannot make such restrictions… instead the congress needs to do it. This is essentially what the court is saying. Now will the congress restrict them? Probably not.
"The issue here is that executive branch cannot make such restrictions… instead the congress needs to do it. This is essentially what the court is saying. Now will the congress restrict them? Probably not."
You're absolutely right Rich. Congress should defund and eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, TransFats and Entenmann's. Now will congress do what's right and restrict this gun-walking, entrapping, power-hungry and illegal entity? Probably not.
I will just note that with this Cargill decision Trump's actions look to have been perhaps the best way to handle the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooter both politically and legally. He held a publicly televised meeting with members of Congress in which he announced, I suspect to he surprise of all there, that he would by Executive action ban the sale of Bump Stocks. I'm assuming this wasn't told to any other member because the Republicans looked disapp0ointed and the late Senator Feinstein looked gleeful. Ultimately, with today's decision that ban has been overturned and there is now an existing Supreme Court decision reining in the ATF and perhaps other administrative agencies from creatively interpreting statutes to implement their momentarily preferred policies. Trump's decision at that time has paid off BIGLY. Now I can freely and legally continue to not purchase a bump stock even though I have the legally protected right to do so.
"Now I can freely and legally continue to not purchase a bump stock" Sort of like a Protestant who is free to proudly march into the chemist shop and purchase a packet of French Ticklers, even though he doesn't actually do so? Monty Python reference, lest anyone think I'm weirdly insulting Protestants....
Sort of like a Protestant who is free to proudly march into the chemist shop and purchase a packet of French Ticklers, even though he doesn't actually do so? Monty Python reference,
Was that from the Meaning of Life? After he is complaining about the Catholics having too many children they can't afford? Somewhere around the "Every Sperm is Sacred" song?
"Monty Python reference, lest anyone think I'm weirdly insulting Protestants...."
C'mon man! If you can't insult Protestants, who can you insult?
@Tom T. said...
"Have to laugh that Justice Jackson's dissent in the immigration case, arguing that it's okay to skip your hearing if you got notice via two documents instead of one, got as many as four votes."
Anyone have a theory as to why Gorsuch joined the minority?
You've got it Vault Dweller. Now I've got that damn song in my head.
I'm not shy about insulting whole religions gratuitously, but that would be a WEIRD insult.
John said...
@Tom T. said...
"Have to laugh that Justice Jackson's dissent in the immigration case, arguing that it's okay to skip your hearing if you got notice via two documents instead of one, got as many as four votes."
Anyone have a theory as to why Gorsuch joined the minority?
Gorsuch appears to have this surge obsession with "proving" that he really does care about textualism, by joining with the Left on insane opinions where some argues that "the text demands this stupid result". See Bostock.
No, Neil, legislatures making laws against sex discrimination in the 1970s weren't trying to protect homosexuals or transexuals, and Congress wasn't saying "you must send one document with everything on it, fist, or else people can blow it off."
It really is pitiful
We have the third and final ruling of the day, in Garland v. Cargill, the bumpstock case. It is by Justice Thomas, and the vote is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.... The question in this case is whether
President Trump was allowed to be above the law, and order the ATF to change a long-standing understanding, rather than getting Congress to pass a new law
#FIFY
The six "conservatives" voted to slap down President Trump's illegitimate power grab, that was endowed by the NRA
The three leftists, being completely unincumbered by principles, said "illegitimate power grab that we like! Go for it!"
"The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees. This is a victory for the government."
Like the tax ruling last week, IMO this was a bad ruling. Not going to lose much sleep about either, but the gov't should have lost the $$$ in both cases
Chuck said...
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
One round per pull of the trigger. As per the legislation.
Yet three justices are so anti-constitution that they voted to uphold this crazy ban. Bumpstocks are unsafe and for people who are unserious about gun safety. Perhaps the ATF could enforce a rule they be made DayGlo pink so the idiots are easy to spot at a range. Of course, ranges could have, and I believe some do, that stocks that allow rapid firing are not allowed.
But really, what part of the black letter law describing "automatic" do these people not understand?
Emphasis added in Mike quote.
This was not, is not, never was, a "Constitutional" case. It is a statutory interpretation and regulatory law case.
You're wrong, Chuck. The "Constitutional" part is that it's Congress's job to make new laws, not the Executive branch.
This was clearly new law. But the three US Constitution hating lefties couldn't care less
Post a Comment