Bump stocks not machine guns GOA

[spec5]

https://www.gunowners.org/victory-court-rules-a-bump-stock-is-not-a-machine-gun/

Springfield, VA – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, which had denied GOA’s motion for a preliminary injunction on bump stocks. Gun Owners of America is seeking an injunction to prevent ATF from implementing a final rule incorrectly classifying bump stocks as machineguns under federal law.

[Flynn]

What is very, very interesting about this ruling is that is appears to neuter an EO that attempts to interpret a criminal law with this court deeming those type of interpretive EOs equate to be a conflict of the seperation of government powers. "it is for the judiciary to ‘say what the law is’" {not the President} ironically this is the same 'seperation of powers' claim the Left used to attack all of Trumps travel bans that just came full circle.

 

This ruling if it stands also just put a big monkey wrench in Biden's proposed plan to use EO to attack the 2nd.

 

It's at a point now the Supreme Court is going to have to get their hands dirty and take on some 2nd Amendment cases, the lower courts are splitting all over the place on anything 2nd related and we also appear to have a real seperation of powers question in regards to how far EO's can reach, something that the Supreme Court is going to have to address sooner than latter as Obama started a trend of bypassing Congress (and the Judicial) with partisan agenda driven EOs.

[EdDinIL]

It's at a point now the Supreme Court is going to have to get their hands dirty and take on some 2nd Amendment cases, the lower courts are splitting all over the place on anything 2nd related and we also appear to have a real seperation of powers question in regards to how far EO's can reach, something that the Supreme Court is going to have to address sooner than latter as Obama started a trend of bypassing Congress (and the Judicial) with partisan agenda driven EOs.

 

This may not be the right place to discuss this, but let's assume SCOTUS issues favorable rulings on 2A cases. What prevents lower courts from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, you really don't have that right."?

[bmyers]

 

It's at a point now the Supreme Court is going to have to get their hands dirty and take on some 2nd Amendment cases, the lower courts are splitting all over the place on anything 2nd related and we also appear to have a real seperation of powers question in regards to how far EO's can reach, something that the Supreme Court is going to have to address sooner than latter as Obama started a trend of bypassing Congress (and the Judicial) with partisan agenda driven EOs.

 

This may not be the right place to discuss this, but let's assume SCOTUS issues favorable rulings on 2A cases. What prevents lower courts from saying, "Naah, SCOTUS was wrong, you really don't have that right."?

 

 

My limited understanding is a judge can be investigated and face misconduct hearing for his/her behavior or contempt charges. I believe what generally happens is the lower court judge will issue a ruling based on his/her interpretation of a word /phrase in the SCOTUS ruling and make it appear that ruling means something or lacks meaning. most won't directly disregard the ruling, they just try to explain their way around the ruling and then things end back up in SCOTUS.

 

The more narrow the SCOTUS ruling, the less likely for different meanings.

[crufflesmuth]

At best, I think SCOTUS will rule you have a right to carry, but like Illinois, it will mean fees and expensive classes, to exercise that right.