MNGunTalk.com

If you're interested (and have LOTS of free time) they're posting the Supreme Court debate about bump stocks on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZhXfnr-eU

Note: it's audio only and over two hours long and I got tired of it after about 20 minutes but right at the beginning is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's now famous (infamous?) gaffe about bump stocks allowing guns to fire 800 rounds a second. (Yowser!)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh can be heard musing about how something the ATF said WAS LEGAL can now be made ILLEGAL without Congress passing any new laws. And in that process make the half million or so folk that purchased bump stocks 'criminals'.

Here's a couple of left leaning opinion pieces that want to make Justice Amy Coney Barrett the one and only person responsible for whatever decision is made, like the other 8 Justices just don't matter. And yes, they're typical gun-grabber rhetoric.

"Amy Coney Barrett Gets to Decide If Machine Guns Are Actually Legal"
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rrett.html

"How Amy Coney Barrett could save us from fully legal automatic weapons"
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2024/2/28/24 ... chine-guns

Here's an article pointing out the general cluelessness of some of the Justices when it comes to actual knowledge about firearms including the 800 rounds per second claim.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/28/in ... guns-work/

Note: I see today that YouTube has additional information where some groups have broken out the some of the hours long raw arguments into the relevant minutes long points, i.e. you don't have to listen to the whole thing to get what you want. Also there is additional 'raw' hours long data that happened after the link I posted above.

I fully support Trump's bump stock ban.

Thank you, Mr. Trump!

Or to put a little more nuance into it, they should be covered under the NFA. You can have one if you meet the requirements.

The issue is a government agency saying that they were legal for years, and then doing an about face and saying they are illegal. That right there is an unjust taking without compensation. The justices also honed in on making people unintentional felons.

If they want to make them illegal congress needs to pass a law and compensate the owners.

Markemp wrote:I fully support Trump's bump stock ban.

Thank you, Mr. Trump!

Or to put a little more nuance into it, they should be covered under the NFA. You can have one if you meet the requirements.

You're welcome to pursue legislation with Congress to prohibit them, but the administrative overreach here should be struck down the court.

There was a line of inquiry that I'll paraphrase as "if you tie a rubber band around your trigger to make bump firing easier, is a rubber band a machine gun?"

A belt loop works too.

Jackpine Savage wrote:The issue is a government agency saying that they were legal for years, and then doing an about face and saying they are illegal. That right there is an unjust taking without compensation. The justices also honed in on making people unintentional felons.

If they want to make them illegal congress needs to pass a law and compensate the owners.

Interesting take. Do you think Oregon shouldn't be allowed to criminalize possession of drugs after they decriminalized it too? Or should the government be required to purchase the drugs?

https://apnews.com/article/oregon-drug- ... 4a7c405144

A bill recriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs was passed by the Oregon Legislature on Friday, undoing a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law as governments struggle to respond to the deadliest overdose crisis in U.S. history.

The state Senate approved House Bill 4002 in a 21-8 vote after the House passed it 51-7 on Thursday. The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Tina Kotek, who said in January that she is open to signing a bill that would roll back decriminalization, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“With this bill, we are doubling down on our commitment to make sure Oregonians have access to the treatment and care that they need,” said Democratic Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber, of Portland, one of the bill’s authors, adding that its passage will “be the start of real and transformative change for our justice system.”

Markemp wrote:

Jackpine Savage wrote:The issue is a government agency saying that they were legal for years, and then doing an about face and saying they are illegal. That right there is an unjust taking without compensation. The justices also honed in on making people unintentional felons.

If they want to make them illegal congress needs to pass a law and compensate the owners.

Interesting take. Do you think Oregon shouldn't be allowed to criminalize possession of drugs after they decriminalized it too? Or should the government be required to purchase the drugs?

https://apnews.com/article/oregon-drug- ... 4a7c405144

A bill recriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs was passed by the Oregon Legislature on Friday, undoing a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law as governments struggle to respond to the deadliest overdose crisis in U.S. history.

The state Senate approved House Bill 4002 in a 21-8 vote after the House passed it 51-7 on Thursday. The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Tina Kotek, who said in January that she is open to signing a bill that would roll back decriminalization, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“With this bill, we are doubling down on our commitment to make sure Oregonians have access to the treatment and care that they need,” said Democratic Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber, of Portland, one of the bill’s authors, adding that its passage will “be the start of real and transformative change for our justice system.”

Apples and oranges.
One is an administrative agency's reinterpretation of an existing law creating instant felons out of people who followed the previous administrative interpretation.
The second is a legislative body passing a bill repealing previously passed legislation.

TSKNIGHT wrote:
Apples and oranges.
One is an administrative agency's reinterpretation of an existing law creating instant felons out of people who followed the previous administrative interpretation.
The second is a legislative body passing a bill repealing previously passed legislation.

Exactly. It is far past time that we dialed back the bureaucracy's ability to create law.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Jackpine Savage wrote:for public use

You missed a spot.

Markemp wrote:

Jackpine Savage wrote:for public use

You missed a spot.

Dig a little deeper. Though I'm sure lawyers would be happy to argue both sides as long as they are getting paid.

At an earlier time, the prevailing judicial view was that the term public use was synonymous with use by the public and that, if there was no duty upon the taker to permit the public as of right to use or enjoy the property taken, the taking was invalid. But the Court rejected this view.11 The modern conception of public use equates it with the police power in furtherance of the public interest. No definition of the reach or limits of the power is possible, the Court has said, because such definition is essentially the product of legislative determinations addressed to the purposes of government, purposes neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete definition. . . . Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order—these are some of the . . . traditional application[s] of the police power . . . .12 Because the legislature has authority to effectuate these matters, its power to achieve them by exercising eminent domain is established. As the Supreme Court observed, For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.13 Subsequently, the Court added as an indicium of public use whether the government purpose could be validly achieved by tax or user fee.14

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-9-2/ALDE_00013281/