Yes it is. If this went to congress to come up with a law, the definition of machine guns would have expanded to include bump stocks and what else? Bump stocks dont act like a machine gun by definition and they arent machine guns, but they could blow a hole in having 535 idiots redefining anything that looks like a gun they saw in the movies.breamfisher wrote: ↑Sat Jun 15, 2024 4:41 pm I wouldn't put too much stock in this ruling being indicative of how the Supremes will rule. I believe this ruling was on separation of powers and not 2 A grounds.
So it means that the legicritters want this, they have to sack up.
On the 2A side, this and the states that are doing end arounds on Bruen are being sued left and right and so far when it gets to the S court, they are getting shot down. Sotomayor stated in the opposition that bump stock are attached to weapons IN COMMON USE. That means that the anti gun justices have admitted that under Bruen, AR's are in common use and not allowed to be banned. All of this matters. This wont be won in a single case against a toy, this is just one battle.
Now the next thing to die (hopefully) will be the Chevron doctrine. That is what has let ATF and EPA and the other TLA's have the courts defer to them.