MSI Goes To the Supreme Court!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    50 seats are available, first come/ first served, for each argument day at SCOTUS. There is no live audiovisual for SCOTUS arguments and SCOTUS conferences (where they decide cert petitions) are strictly limited to the Justices themselves.

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

    We got to get cert granted first. So, wait and see.
     

    Beancounter

    Active Member
    Jul 8, 2012
    145
    Some people have guns that are priceless. All of mine are. Not to mention, they are not for sale.

    A democrat/gungrabber giving you money for something they take from you isn't compensation. It's theft.

    What If I give out ham sandwiches and take 20 bucks out of the pocket of everyone I force to take my sandwich? I compensated them, so taking the 20 bucks isn't theft.


    You should change your statement: It was a Republican president of the US (who is still in office) who banned your bumpstock. Facts, although frequently ignored, are still facts. Unless, of course, one went to the Josef Goebbels school of language.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    You should change your statement: It was a Republican president of the US (who is still in office) who banned your bumpstock. Facts, although frequently ignored, are still facts. Unless, of course, one went to the Josef Goebbels school of language.

    Yeah, an agency made a regulatory change that sucked so that a congress with a huge post-double-mass-shootings appetite to do far worse than just bump stocks didn’t pass a law with way more consequence. Which you know.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,990
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    Help me understand the strategy, here. I understand it's about the Takings-ness of the Maryland law, but since the bump stocks are currently, by way of ATF rule/reg, naughty, is there a solid reason for the time and expense on this particular fight? Will a win on the takings issue in some way impact the non-Maryland, wider federal issue on this front? Looking to understand the big picture that's driving effort on this one.


    Hopefully a grant and then a win would also constrain these two bit tyrant governors from closing or limiting capacity at restaurants during a "pandemic". The taking of their business income is no different in my mind.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Hopefully a grant and then a win would also constrain these two bit tyrant governors from closing or limiting capacity at restaurants during a "pandemic". The taking of their business income is no different in my mind.

    This. And to Occam, yes, a win in this case will impact the pending takings litigation challenging the ATF rule. That Takings challenge was argued in the Federal Circuit on Dec. 8, 2020. Read the petition for details.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,163
    It is all about precedent. If it is unconstitutional to ban legally owned triggers without reasonable compensation then banning legally owned firearms or any other item becomes much more expensive to the governments and therefore less likely.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    Yeah, an agency made a regulatory change that sucked so that a congress with a huge post-double-mass-shootings appetite to do far worse than just bump stocks didn’t pass a law with way more consequence. Which you know.

    So? The executive branch exceeding their authority is still illegal.

    That's been my complaint with all of the illegal actions the Trump admin has been taking over the years (illegal acting heads of agencies, EOs that can't carry legal weight, agency decisions that are blatantly illegal like the bump stock ban).

    Even if I liked some of them, many of them are actions that must be taken by the legislature.

    A, because I happen to like the Constitution, even if sometimes that means I don't get the government actions I want, I'd rather everyone follow the rules properly.

    B, so it is fine if the Trump admin bends or breaks the constitution or the law, but it will be bad and wrong if the Biden administration does the same thing?

    So yeah, even if the ATF banning bump stocks really did forestall congressional action, it was not legal and should not have been done.
     

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    Yeah, an agency made a regulatory change that sucked so that a congress with a huge post-double-mass-shootings appetite to do far worse than just bump stocks didn’t pass a law with way more consequence. Which you know.

    What were they going to pass?
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    What were they going to pass?

    There were some excellent behind-the-scenes write-ups of what was brewing in congress. Legislators from the left were thrilled with the never-waste-a-crisis opportunity to go big on gun grabbing, and (enough) legislators on the right (enough to create a veto-proof bill) were scrambling to deflect and placate that they were on board. The prototype bill versions that were circulated during that effort included banning bump stocks, another full-on AWB 2.0, and everything from regular psych screenings for gun owners to mandatory liability insurance and huge ammo taxes. The usual lefty wish list, but with traction because of two ultra high profile mass killings that involved scary black rifles. It all got headed off at the pass through a fast tracked, hold-your-nose, wrong-headed, unconstitutional, but also far less impactful and easier to reverse regulatory change.

    We hate the bump stock rule, for a lot of solid reasons. But you know who REALLY hates it? The Democrats. Because it took the steam out of their rushed legislative effort, and stole away all of the GOPers who might have been dragged onboard. It was the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing, on principle, would have resulted in far worse damage. One can argue whether it’s better to suffer a much worse legislative result on principle, but I’m glad their movement to and broad support in congress and the senate for a new AWB got promptly defanged by Trump. Shame he (and us) were painted into a corner by the acts of two crazy murderers and a mass media thrilled it happened.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,154
    Deep Blue MD
    There were some excellent behind-the-scenes write-ups of what was brewing in congress. Legislators from the left were thrilled with the never-waste-a-crisis opportunity to go big on gun grabbing, and (enough) legislators on the right (enough to create a veto-proof bill) were scrambling to deflect and placate that they were on board. The prototype bill versions that were circulated during that effort included banning bump stocks, another full-on AWB 2.0, and everything from regular psych screenings for gun owners to mandatory liability insurance and huge ammo taxes. The usual lefty wish list, but with traction because of two ultra high profile mass killings that involved scary black rifles. It all got headed off at the pass through a fast tracked, hold-your-nose, wrong-headed, unconstitutional, but also far less impactful and easier to reverse regulatory change.

    We hate the bump stock rule, for a lot of solid reasons. But you know who REALLY hates it? The Democrats. Because it took the steam out of their rushed legislative effort, and stole away all of the GOPers who might have been dragged onboard. It was the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing, on principle, would have resulted in far worse damage. One can argue whether it’s better to suffer a much worse legislative result on principle, but I’m glad their movement to and broad support in congress and the senate for a new AWB got promptly defanged by Trump. Shame he (and us) were painted into a corner by the acts of two crazy murderers and a mass media thrilled it happened.


    Logic and facts done work on people like that. They care more about emotion and orange man bad. Unfortunatly it looks like they successfully stole the election. After all Biden did warn everyone that him and obummer "Created the largest voter fraud organization ever".

    They are about to pay hell because they are about to get what they wanted and they better not complain about 1 damn thing.
     

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    There were some excellent behind-the-scenes write-ups of what was brewing in congress. Legislators from the left were thrilled with the never-waste-a-crisis opportunity to go big on gun grabbing, and (enough) legislators on the right (enough to create a veto-proof bill) were scrambling to deflect and placate that they were on board. The prototype bill versions that were circulated during that effort included banning bump stocks, another full-on AWB 2.0, and everything from regular psych screenings for gun owners to mandatory liability insurance and huge ammo taxes. The usual lefty wish list, but with traction because of two ultra high profile mass killings that involved scary black rifles. It all got headed off at the pass through a fast tracked, hold-your-nose, wrong-headed, unconstitutional, but also far less impactful and easier to reverse regulatory change.

    We hate the bump stock rule, for a lot of solid reasons. But you know who REALLY hates it? The Democrats. Because it took the steam out of their rushed legislative effort, and stole away all of the GOPers who might have been dragged onboard. It was the lesser of two evils. Doing nothing, on principle, would have resulted in far worse damage. One can argue whether it’s better to suffer a much worse legislative result on principle, but I’m glad their movement to and broad support in congress and the senate for a new AWB got promptly defanged by Trump. Shame he (and us) were painted into a corner by the acts of two crazy murderers and a mass media thrilled it happened.


    It didn't de-fang or take the steam out of anything. Democrats didn't make a stink out of anything because they are better at the long game and are content to wait for another opportunity.

    We are happy with the lesser of two evils and consistently divided.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    It didn't de-fang or take the steam out of anything. Democrats didn't make a stink out of anything because they are better at the long game and are content to wait for another opportunity.

    We are happy with the lesser of two evils and consistently divided.

    Speak for yourself. I’m not happy.

    But I’d be even MORE not happy if we’d had an aggressive federal AWB law and worse in place for the last three years. Which we were about to, and didn’t.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,778
    Baltimore County
    Speak for yourself. I’m not happy.

    But I’d be even MORE not happy if we’d had an aggressive federal AWB law and worse in place for the last three years. Which we were about to, and didn’t.

    The benefit of the AWB would be that we would all be on the same page.
    It'd be good if they did it with mags too.
    Pistols that have a mag
    Any gun that has the ability to hold more than 3 rounds.

    See, only when people pull head out of butt and realized as a whole what their end game is...then and only then can there be resistance to it. We typers on this forum are a very small % of the gun community. Most have no idea and don't know how many it affects, so we get that "dang, this is banned, but it does not affect me" thing going on all the time. The second it affects everyone is the second that it will stop.

    Instead, they seperated us by alienating those who have certain items etc.


    We only win if they turn the water to really hot really fast and people are united. The way that the court games play out is exactly how they want.

    There is no way that our side can win. Let me explain.
    If they tried to take the cake all at once, there would be a FU
    If they tried for an AWB all at once, there would be a FU

    So instead they do what they have always done and we consider it a win when they take a little less than they originally were going to take. That's not a win. That keeps courts and lawyers busy and paid.

    Nobody will keep our rights except for us.
    When the American people realize that is when this stupid game stops.

    **link because the picture attached is kind of small:
    https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
     

    Attachments

    • Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.jpg
      Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.jpg
      51.2 KB · Views: 359

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    The benefit of the AWB would be that we would all be on the same page.
    It'd be good if they did it with mags too.
    Pistols that have a mag
    Any gun that has the ability to hold more than 3 rounds.

    See, only when people pull head out of butt and realized as a whole what their end game is...then and only then can there be resistance to it. We typers on this forum are a very small % of the gun community. Most have no idea and don't know how many it affects, so we get that "dang, this is banned, but it does not affect me" thing going on all the time. The second it affects everyone is the second that it will stop.

    Instead, they seperated us by alienating those who have certain items etc.


    We only win if they turn the water to really hot really fast and people are united. The way that the court games play out is exactly how they want.

    There is no way that our side can win. Let me explain.
    If they tried to take the cake all at once, there would be a FU
    If they tried for an AWB all at once, there would be a FU

    So instead they do what they have always done and we consider it a win when they take a little less than they originally were going to take. That's not a win. That keeps courts and lawyers busy and paid.

    Nobody will keep our rights except for us.
    When the American people realize that is when this stupid game stops.

    **link because the picture attached is kind of small:
    https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/


    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,488
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom