Two significant gun regulation developments — days before Supreme Court arguments in a third gun-related case. And: A second trans care case at SCOTUS.
Implications of the Bruen decision are now too numerous in their risks to the public that even this SCOTUS is forced to amend or dial back the nonsensical Thomas dictum of "historical precedence" - i.e., 18th- and early 19th-Century gun laws, or the absence of same. Reductio ad absurdum can't any longer stand as doctrine, surely.
The bump stock regulation, during the Trump Administration yet, probably deserves a bit more attention than it receives.
The Washington Post article noted: "Americans bought 520,000 bump stocks during the period in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed them. The rule requires owners to either surrender or destroy devices they lawfully obtained."
The NRA lawsuit seems trivial to me. I wonder what justices granted cert.
Recent rulings give me hope that we are edging back toward sanity.
Implications of the Bruen decision are now too numerous in their risks to the public that even this SCOTUS is forced to amend or dial back the nonsensical Thomas dictum of "historical precedence" - i.e., 18th- and early 19th-Century gun laws, or the absence of same. Reductio ad absurdum can't any longer stand as doctrine, surely.
The bump stock regulation, during the Trump Administration yet, probably deserves a bit more attention than it receives.
The Washington Post article noted: "Americans bought 520,000 bump stocks during the period in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed them. The rule requires owners to either surrender or destroy devices they lawfully obtained."
The NRA lawsuit seems trivial to me. I wonder what justices granted cert.
I recall Easterbrook (brother of the football writer) being one of those old-time conservatives not a big fan of Heller.