esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
Help me understand the strategy, here. I understand it's about the Takings-ness of the Maryland law, but since the bump stocks are currently, by way of ATF rule/reg, naughty, is there a solid reason for the time and expense on this particular fight? Will a win on the takings issue in some way impact the non-Maryland, wider federal issue on this front? Looking to understand the big picture that's driving effort on this one.
Maryland didn't just ban bump stocks. . . And they way MD did it will open the door for our overlords to take any other property they deem unacceptable with no compensation.
Maryland didn't just ban bump stocks. . . And they way MD did it will open the door for our overlords to take any other property they deem unacceptable with no compensation.
Maryland didn't just ban bump stocks. . . And they way MD did it will open the door for our overlords to take any other property they deem unacceptable with no compensation.
A valuable pursuit, then. But it’s aimed at compensation during a taking, not the underlying problem of the policy position (confiscatory aspirations/instincts) that inspires the taking in the first place, right?
Or is the thinking that by forcing compensation into the mix, they’d back away - because of the risk of taxpayer outrage or just budget pain - at the expense such confiscations would then represent ... and thus head them off on practicality, rather than principle?
Some people have guns that are priceless. All of mine are. Not to mention, they are not for sale.
A democrat/gungrabber giving you money for something they take from you isn't compensation. It's theft.
What If I give out ham sandwiches and take 20 bucks out of the pocket of everyone I force to take my sandwich? I compensated them, so taking the 20 bucks isn't theft.
A valuable pursuit, then. But it’s aimed at compensation during a taking, not the underlying problem of the policy position (confiscatory aspirations/instincts) that inspires the taking in the first place, right?
Or is the thinking that by forcing compensation into the mix, they’d back away - because of the risk of taxpayer outrage or just budget pain - at the expense such confiscations would then represent ... and thus head them off on practicality, rather than principle?
50 seats are available, first come/ first served, for each argument day at SCOTUS. There is no live audiovisual for SCOTUS arguments and SCOTUS conferences (where they decide cert petitions) are strictly limited to the Justices themselves.Are we able to observe when this is tried?
This has zero to do with awb,magazine ban nor ccw.... -_-