Federal Judge Destroys DOJ in Opinion on Bump stocks.

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!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    If you read any opinion I link to read this. Its a takings opinion from Texas on the bump stock ban. It denied the government's motion to dismiss. Here is a highlight.

    "Perhaps there is one more place, where the collective will and knowledge of the people is expressed, that might indicate if the federal government has seized the police power from the states: the Constitution Wikipedia.49 But strangely, even Wikipedia has overruled neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court:"
     

    Attachments

    • Lane v United States (bumpstock takings case).pdf
      184.2 KB · Views: 515

    welder516

    Deplorable Welder
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    27,429
    Underground Bunker
    How does this help the common free man/woman ?

    Can this now be challenge in each state or is this just federal , each state then has the final say . And last i looked i am still in Maryland
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,908
    No police power?

    Wrong. Here's the deal; they have guns, free lawyers paid for by you and I, and full backup from every element of dotGov, except for one lowly judge.

    Here's a quote that explains a lot:
    All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.

    - Chairman Mao

    (Change "Communist" to "Democratic" and attribute it to 66% of MD's General Assembly, and try to find a difference. Yes, I get it that this isn't a MD issue; it still works as an explanation.)
     

    JerseyMike

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2019
    437
    Germantown
    Plaintiff should file an amended complaint after the Feds refile their motion to dismiss and make clear that they are also challenging the constitutionality of the ban in addition to the takings claim.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Plaintiff should file an amended complaint after the Feds refile their motion to dismiss and make clear that they are also challenging the constitutionality of the ban in addition to the takings claim.

    The only constitutional claim is the taking claim, which I doubt they argued properly. The other issue is under administrative law that involves an administrative agencies new interpretation of a law.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,866
    Sun City West, AZ
    (Change "Communist" to "Democratic" and attribute it to 66% of MD's General Assembly, and try to find a difference. Yes, I get it that this isn't a MD issue; it still works as an explanation.)

    I refer to it as the "Democrat" Party and not "Democratic" Party. There's nothing democratic about the Democrat Party.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,401
    Messages
    7,280,206
    Members
    33,449
    Latest member
    Tactical Shepherd

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom