Reading that last paragraph, I am struck by the fact that THIS is what sane people are reduced to having to argue in this country. Anywhere else in the world this would be a parody, a joke, that THAT'S what we're debating. In the United States it's somehow reality. We are completely mad.
I don't get the Alito concurrence - "Congress clearly understood that a bump-stock gun is a kind of machine gun" because plain meaning at the time of enactment comprised such a gun...but plain meaning doesn't embrace it...?
I don't get it - I understand Thomas' basic point : a bump stock requires more than one function because you need to release your finger. That definition seems to make basic sense, although not being a gun expert I know nothing about about the factual question of whether it does or doesn't. But what's Alito's?
David Firestone wrote in the NYTimes that the "detailed close-up drawings of a gun’s innards [were] (provided by the Firearms Policy Foundation, a pro-gun nonprofit group)."
The GOP is pro mass murder. What else can we call it? We don’t live in a vacuum. Other countries with sensible gun ownership laws DO NOT have frequently repeated mass gun murders. Fact! Why can’t we see it? Is there a reason one political party wants to kill groups of people? I think we know the answer to that.
These GOP monsters on SCOTUS must be dealt with, via impeachment or dilution through court expansion. They are simply illegal, and operating as such for their sponsors. It's gotta get fixed, now.
I wonder if Sotomayor could/should read this dissent aloud in a Substack? That would allow people to hear it in her own words, long before the Court releases the official recording, months later.
If the GOP can take Hunter Biden's own words in his own voice INTO court, why should progressives take her own words in her own voice OUT of court, where we can hear them, share them, and act on them?
I don't know how the cert question(s) was/were framed but one thing strikes me - shouldn't the Court have clarified the statute, defined "single function of the trigger" and remanded to the District Court to develop the factual record as to whether or not a gun with a bump stock involves one or more than one function of the trigger?
Why are justices arguing over whether a gif accurately displays how a mechanism works?
In D.C. v. Heller, the major Second Amendment case, they should have remanded to have the lower court apply the new constitutional rule. They didn't. They decided how it applied to handguns and trigger locks.
Thomas seems to think the President of the NRA back in 1934 would have approved of his decision. I rather doubt he would. Back then the NRA was focused on gun safety, if I recall my Dad's subscription to its magazine in the early 50's.
Reading that last paragraph, I am struck by the fact that THIS is what sane people are reduced to having to argue in this country. Anywhere else in the world this would be a parody, a joke, that THAT'S what we're debating. In the United States it's somehow reality. We are completely mad.
Yet a newly fertilised ovum is sacrosanct.
Unless it's killed by gunfire. Than the gun owner is innocent.
Anita Hill warned us.
She absolutely did!!
Sure, Alito, Congress can "amend the law", only for you lot to promptly toss it coz *Bruen* and "history and tradition"...GTFOOH, man.
I don't get the Alito concurrence - "Congress clearly understood that a bump-stock gun is a kind of machine gun" because plain meaning at the time of enactment comprised such a gun...but plain meaning doesn't embrace it...?
I don't get it - I understand Thomas' basic point : a bump stock requires more than one function because you need to release your finger. That definition seems to make basic sense, although not being a gun expert I know nothing about about the factual question of whether it does or doesn't. But what's Alito's?
Can hardly wait to see if someone with a restraining order can have a gun. That should be coming soon
Do we even need to guess on this one?
David Firestone wrote in the NYTimes that the "detailed close-up drawings of a gun’s innards [were] (provided by the Firearms Policy Foundation, a pro-gun nonprofit group)."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/opinion/supreme-court-bumpstocks-guns.html
Yes, the group’s name is on the figures.
They have no shame.
The GOP is pro mass murder. What else can we call it? We don’t live in a vacuum. Other countries with sensible gun ownership laws DO NOT have frequently repeated mass gun murders. Fact! Why can’t we see it? Is there a reason one political party wants to kill groups of people? I think we know the answer to that.
These GOP monsters on SCOTUS must be dealt with, via impeachment or dilution through court expansion. They are simply illegal, and operating as such for their sponsors. It's gotta get fixed, now.
I wonder if Sotomayor could/should read this dissent aloud in a Substack? That would allow people to hear it in her own words, long before the Court releases the official recording, months later.
If the GOP can take Hunter Biden's own words in his own voice INTO court, why should progressives take her own words in her own voice OUT of court, where we can hear them, share them, and act on them?
I’m so angry at these horrible people
Alito was recorded at that same event where his wife was mouthing off about flags questioning ProPublica’s integrity.
That shit made me so mad I would have gladly slapped him.
I don’t even think things like that often.
Jesus take the wheel.
I don't know how the cert question(s) was/were framed but one thing strikes me - shouldn't the Court have clarified the statute, defined "single function of the trigger" and remanded to the District Court to develop the factual record as to whether or not a gun with a bump stock involves one or more than one function of the trigger?
Why are justices arguing over whether a gif accurately displays how a mechanism works?
In D.C. v. Heller, the major Second Amendment case, they should have remanded to have the lower court apply the new constitutional rule. They didn't. They decided how it applied to handguns and trigger locks.
And of course it's lost on no one that they did this just in the time for the war their side plans on starting.....
Appalling.
Thomas seems to think the President of the NRA back in 1934 would have approved of his decision. I rather doubt he would. Back then the NRA was focused on gun safety, if I recall my Dad's subscription to its magazine in the early 50's.
The Supreme Court 6 clearly want Second Amendment nuts to have an easier time massacre the rest of us.