Trump wins battle against 2nd amendment in federal court!

[jmdrake]

https://www.kxxv.com/story/40026925/challenge-to-trump-administrations-bump-fire-stocks-ban-rejected

Oh....but the Trumpskiites said "Don't worry about the fact that Trump supported an assault weapons ban in 2002. He has seen the light. Don't worry about the fact that Trump became the first president ever to ban a gun accessory through executive order. He's just set this up to get struck down in court. Don't worry about the fact that Trump told Diane Feinstein as president that he would support an assault weapons ban. He was just joking."

So far Barack Obama was a stronger supporter of the 2nd amendment that Donald Trump has been as president. Obama signed two executive orders ENHANCING gun rights. One was to allow guns to be carried on person in national forests, reversing a Ronald Reagan ban on that practice. (Yes you Reagan bootlickers, the "Gipper" was a gun grabber.) The other was allowing guns to be carried on Amtrak trains. Yes Obama also signed an anti gun executive order requiring the Social Security Administration to report people who applied for mental health disability to the federal background check registry and Trump overturned that order. Yeah Trump! So Trump is for restricting gun rights for everyone (bumpfire stocks and possibly assault weapons) but for allowing crazy people to have guns? Hey, here's a thought. If you want to keep your gun rights don't claim your crazy so you can get a check from the taxpayers!

Back to Trump's bump ban. It has a good chance, unfortunately, of being upheld all the way. Every liberal judge will automatically go for it. So what about the conservative judges? You mean people like John Roberts who took a dive on the Affordable Care Act calling it a "tax" after the fact? You think those justices will rein in the executive power of a republican president? Well...maybe they will. But if they do that and they are consistent then that means "bye bye Mexico wall" as well.

And yeah, I get it. Hillary sucks. I didn't vote for her or Trump. But that doesn't mean bend over, pull your pants and undies down and hand Trump a jar of Vaseline! Trump has done some things I support. (The First Step Act for instance. Firing that jackass Jeff Sessions for another). But that doesn't mean I will put my brain in neutral and just support any damn thing he does because "the deep state." At times he cooperates with that very same "deep state." What's going on with Venezuela is case in point. Trump, Obama, Pelosi, Bolton all of those suckers support the same thing. Get whatever good you think you can out of Trump but don't give him your blind allegiance.

 

[acptulsa]

But but but--muh wall!

 

[jmdrake]

But but but--muh wall!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

 

[CaptUSA]

So far Barack Obama was a stronger supporter of the 2nd amendment that Donald Trump has been as president.

Well, that little nugget of truth just destroyed a few narratives... I guess you don't understand 3D chess.

 

[shakey1]

Get whatever good you think you can out of Trump but don't give him your blind allegiance.

Got that right.

 

[CCTelander]

This simply must be fake news. I was assured, repearedly, by various Trump humpers that this absolutely couldn't happen. They wouldn't lie now, would they?

 

[RonZeplin]

Filed a notice of appeal and will continue to challenge the ban

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker signed a new federal regulation in December that concluded that bump-fire stocks fall within the prohibition on machine guns, and therefore are illegal under federal law.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs -- Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, David Codrea and their co-plaintiffs -- argued that the ATF violated procedural requirements, and that Whitaker did not, at the time, have the authority to set forth a ban.

Following Monday's ruling, the plaintiffs issued a statement saying that have filed a notice of appeal and will continue to challenge the ban.

President Trump's Bump Stock Ban will be struck down if it makes it to SCOTUS.

 

[CCTelander]

President Trump's Bump Stock Ban will be struck down if it makes it to SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS follows their historic pattern wrt 2nd Amendment issues, which I have no reason to doubt they will, they'll simply deny cert and the lower court ruling will stand. There have been a couple notable exceptions in the last couple of decades, but I sincerely doubt this will be one of them.

 

[Swordsmyth]

We all knew this would happen on the way up the ladder, it doesn't change anything.
It will be overruled.

 

[Jamesiv1]

I predicted this would happen.

 

[TheTexan]

We all knew this would happen on the way up the ladder, it doesn't change anything.
It will be overruled.

Which is of course Trump's intention all along.

 

[TheTexan]

Given that bump-stocks have no legitimate hunting purpose, it's unlikely SCOTUS would overrule the ban on any 2A grounds.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

We all knew this would happen on the way up the ladder, it doesn't change anything.
It will be overruled.

Close call, eh bro? I was concerned you were gonna have to delete your Melania/Ivanka deep fakes.

 

[PAF]

Trump would have ALL of us on board had he "Set the Tone" (precedent) to End Incentives, fire-side chat/tweeted about the destruction of Common Core/FedDeptEd, fulfilled his promise to Veto Omnibus, etc. Hell I would have even voted for him in 2020.

However, after fully vetting this guy it is no surprise to me.

 

[RonZeplin]

Trump/Hogg deep state

If SCOTUS follows their historic pattern wrt 2nd Amendment issues, which I have no reason to doubt they will, they'll simply deny cert and the lower court ruling will stand. There have been a couple notable exceptions in the last couple of decades, but I sincerely doubt this will be one of them.

Unfortunately, you're most likely right.

Curses upon the progressive Trumpkin/Hogg Nation deep state, America's worst.

 

[CCTelander]

Close call, eh bro? I was concerned you were gonna have to delete your Melania/Ivanka deep fakes.

Glad to see you again.

No clse call at all. Anyone with two functioning brain cells could have predicted what actually happened so far. Only delusional Trumpbots thought otherwise.

 

[spudea]

once again, you can still buy a bump fire stock right now. Or you can use a rubberband to bumpfire.

https://www.rwarms.com/products/sli...ck/?utm_source=email&utm_content=introduction

and this suit isn't alleging a 2nd amendment violation, so the thread title is fake news, its complaint is procedural, so these groups are not willing to do the heavy lifting and challenge the ban on 2nd amendment grounds.

"The group argued that the agency had flouted numerous procedures when it made the rule change, building its case mostly on procedural law rather than invoking the Second Amendment."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d-federal-judge-rules/?utm_term=.d8111d27f1b6

 

[juleswin]

Well, that little nugget of truth just destroyed a few narratives... I guess you don't understand 3D chess.

The narrative is that he is better than Hillary and remember, Trump even voted for Obama. Its kinds complicated but you still have to pprove to his supporters that he is would be worse than Hillary.

 

[Superfluous Man]

you can use a rubberband to bumpfire.

For a little while longer.

 

[jmdrake]

If SCOTUS follows their historic pattern wrt 2nd Amendment issues, which I have no reason to doubt they will, they'll simply deny cert and the lower court ruling will stand. There have been a couple notable exceptions in the last couple of decades, but I sincerely doubt this will be one of them.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CCTelander again.

^This.