vegeta@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 16 days agoSupreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawfulwww.cnbc.comexternal-linkmessage-square150fedilinkarrow-up1270arrow-down16
arrow-up1264arrow-down1external-linkSupreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawfulwww.cnbc.comvegeta@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 16 days agomessage-square150fedilink
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·15 days agoRight. And because Congress hasn’t prohibited them, they’re fair game. I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
minus-squarederf82@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·15 days agoMy point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·15 days agoI read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
minus-squarederf82@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·15 days agoAnd there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law. I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.
Right. And because Congress hasn’t prohibited them, they’re fair game.
I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.