What are the implications of this?

What are the implications of this?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications of this?
    Setting precedent that the ATF can't just ban shit it doesn't like every time they get their panties ruffled without going through congress.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH

      Ideally, but this was a executive order signed by President Trump.

      that everybody forgot Vegas already

      Don't worry, this is going to be played up a lot in the coming elections, they'll make a big deal about how evil the Supreme Court is, they've already done this regarding carry and Roe V. Wade.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        RvW was deeply unpopular though. Every ballot measure to restrict abortions failed in 2022, and every ballot measure to protect abortions passed. SCOTUS did not do itself any favors with it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how the fuck do we fix women?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop caring about abortion retard. The black population will explode when it is banned

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              *rubs hands*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Genetically engineered catgirls for domestic ownership has always been the answer.

            B-b-b-boring. Wake me up when SBRs no longer require a stamp

            They don't if you aren't a bitch.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              t. Never even got a speeding ticket

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Start having sex with chickens ig

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Women and demon are only one letter off. Abortionists are demonically possessed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Roe V. Wade wasn't a very strong ruling, considering it was built on admitted lies. If people feel strongly about abortion as a right, then it was a pretty flimsy thing to rest it all on.

          still not buying one of those retarded pieces of shit

          That's fine, as long as it's not banned.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >built on admitted lies
            she can identify as a rape victim if she wants

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Tierney Sneed

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Boomers can ask the atf for refunds on all their devices they turned in or destroyed.
    Atf.gov/refunds

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > turning in your contraband

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Uh uh uh, no refunds retards!
      Oh no boomertards, we got too cocky...

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that everybody forgot Vegas already

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, I never really cared about bump stocks, but what I did care about is the ban setting the precedent that you can just ban shit without a bill going through Congress, not that I think even those should be able to ban legitimate weapons, but that's beside the point.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tierney sneed

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those fucking digits.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They got differing circuit court decisions so it goes to SCOTUS to decide, they'll most likely strike down the "law", implications going to be a severe long term curtailing of the BATFE trying to ban new things via letter law and the same for EOs. Good news overall.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    still not buying one of those retarded pieces of shit

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    B-b-b-boring. Wake me up when SBRs no longer require a stamp

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can anyone explain why they require a stamp anyway? Does anyone actually care about SBRs? I've never even once heard of a gun grabber mentioning them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Can anyone explain why they require a stamp anyway
        It's been explained before but
        >NFA 1934
        >originally they wanted to ban handguns too
        >well we have to make it illegal to cut down long guns then otherwise they'll take the place of handguns
        >handgun ban is rarted, gets taken off
        >SBRs and SBSs stay

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not even the worst part.
          > 1939
          > Be Miller
          > Get caught with a shotgun under an 18 inch barrel
          > Arrested, go to trial
          > District court rules law unconstitutional
          > Dumbass didn't even bother to show up to supreme court hearing after govt appeals, neither his lawyer to argue why the NFA is unconstitutional
          > Immediately go into hiding, only to get shot and killed
          > Law stays

          Literally haven't had a challenge like this since then.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Democrats will false flag a county event like vegas again,

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the implications of this?
    Me buying a bump stock obviously

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The price of ammo will go up slightly due to people wasting ammo with these silly things. Binary > bump

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does nobody challenge the NFA and GCA outright?
    These grifter organizations keep telling us it's because we gotta "chip away so we have a better argument"
    But if that's the case why does antigun retards get to rip huge chunks in gun bills and cost us 5 years of taxpayer dollars defending this shit?
    I think it's horseshit and people are just being pussies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because saying "machine guns need to be legal" sounds very silly to everyone who isn't a gun guy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I bet that sounded smarter in your head.
        It doesn't matter if it "sounds silly" it's in the constitution saying I can and should own anything my government possesses.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I bet that sounded smarter in your head.
          not really, its always been the case, you are just out of touch.

          >it's in the constitution saying I can and should own anything my government possesses.
          so? its pretty obvious that the government tries its best to ignore the wording of the 2nd amendment.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why does nobody challenge the NFA and GCA outright?
      Because the majority opinion in Bruen, written by your god Clarence Thomas stated outright that the NFA was perfectly A-OK.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >[citation needed]

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the NRA hasn't had any balls at all since the 1980s where they lobbied for the GOPA, a law which was overall incredibly good and protected people against a vast variety of common abuse and overreach by cops and the BATFE (GOPA widely being viewed as a serious threat by LEO and BATFE). The Hughes Amendment, which makes it so that new fully transferable machineguns can't be registered, gets tacked onto the bill in an attempt to kill it (and the circumstances of this shady in itself), but people bite the bullet and GOPA gets signed anyway.

      Presumably the thought was that the Hughes Amendment in itself could be challenged later, but the NRA never decides to do this. Probably because they cuck the fuck out in the 1990s, outright defending the 1994 AWB, a very horrid law which is part of the even worse Crime Bill (which has had horrible consequences for American society by itself), championed then by the currently sitting sleepy president. Ronald Reagan signs GOPA into law with a smile, proudly declaring that "machineguns have no place in American homes!", and given how the NRA turned, perhaps it was the plan all along.

      These days, the NRA makes some limp efforts to stop gun control which sometimes works, but often not. They NEVER lobby to undo any kind of gun control at al, everl, all the stuff that has happened in recent years to loosen some law has happened in state and federal courts with preciously little effort by the NRA. Trump was a stupid gay for banning bumpstocks, but he also ended up doing more for gunrights than the NRA has done since 1986 by putting some conservative judges onto the Supreme Court, probably unintentionally.

      The only thing the NRA is really good for these days is the insurances they offer, which actually aren't bad, but that's still a massive fall from grace.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing. The feds will just seek appeals and reviews and other actions to keep the regulation in place. Until they can exhaust the plaintiff and get a different court ruling.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just another example of Trump not being able to accomplish a single thing of note

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *