To justify legalizing bump stocks, Clarence Thomas literally copied and pasted materials from an extremist pro-gun group whose violent rhetoric makes the NRA look moderate.
I read the other day that he went into great detail.
Schematics in his opinion.
I’m thinking where did he get all that?.
Just for fun asked myself. I’m always correct.
Common sense would dictate a complete ban.
Yea, complete.
>Bump stocks can effectively turn a rifle into a "machinegun"
>Binary triggers can already do that with a higher RPM and were never banned
>Law-abiding citizens dont magically turn evil when acquiring a high-RPM firearm
>We should repeal the NFA
Don't debate with gun fetishists.
They will drag you down into petty details of nomenclature, implying a tacit acceptance that there's a possible justification through a 'legal' context where mass murder is simply an inconvenience we must all just put up with for the sake of 'freedom.'
Here goes: Don’t leave Amy Coney Barrett out.
Samp is counsel for Firearms Policy Coalition and of course, Leonard Leo’s guy.
Brandon Combs is the Pres of FPC and wrote in support of ACB for SCOTUS.
Very curious. What does it take to have SCOTUS’s ear exactly? I can’t imagine that it’s moral clout. After all, we are talking about Clarence Thomas here.
How are justices allowed to copy rulings wholesale out of documents from lobbyists? Don’t they cite things when referencing other laws or cases? Why don’t they have to cite entire paragraphs copied out of 3rd party documents?
Look...
Bump-fire stocks are nothing more than ammo wasting devices.
That's it. That's all they are.
The ban was nothing but performance theater in the first place.
*DO* focus on the psycho grifter in the court, yes, but if the gun crazies wanna waste ammo without hitting anything, let them.
Look, I'll lay it flat. I like guns, a LOT, but I don't every feel the need to get a fully automatic rifle or small armies worth of them. Would I shoot a full auto if my range allowed them and I was offered? Absolutely. would I buy one myself? No, because there really isn't a use for them
Bump stocks were in fact ruled as legal by the ATF for over a decade, then abruptly ruled illegal with no act of congress to justify it. The contrary claim is nonsense.
The article wrongly claims “rate of fire” is related to being a machine gun. Just not true.
If Harvard can lose a president over made up plagiarism allegations, can a SCOTUS justice be impeached over a purposeful copy & paste hack job from fringe groups in legitimate judicial proceedings (now public record)?
"The court decides to drop everything and figure out how this gun works. Now, the way ATF does that is to ... look at the firearm .... bring in their experts and make those determinations. [The Supreme Court looks] at an amicus brief by the Firearms Policy Coalition and co-sign it."