@[email protected] to [email protected] • 4 months agoSupreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawfulwww.cnbc.commessage-square109fedilinkarrow-up1266
arrow-up1266external-linkSupreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawfulwww.cnbc.com@[email protected] to [email protected] • 4 months agomessage-square109fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish7•4 months 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•4 months agoMy point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish4•4 months 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•4 months 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.