Court says that bump stock isn't a machine gun
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:28 pm
Your 30.06 & 30.07 Information Resource
https://forum.texas3006.com/
I’m assuming that, if the prosecution is dumb enough to move forward, the first thing the defense will do is to introduce the appellate court's decision into the trial record. Then if the prosecutor is dumb enough to not throw in the towel, then either the judge will dismiss the case, or the jury will probably acquit the defendant. And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:51 pm I just wanted to point out that this is the first case I know of that actually looked at the rule. Even the dissent did not look at the rule itself, just whether or not they should just accept the claim of the ATF (what is called Chevron Deference based on a SCOTUS decision in a 1984 case).
I have to look up and see exactly what this means now. Does Chevron deference go to a criminal trial? Or does the prosecutor need to actually prove the law in a criminal trial over the bureaucrats interpretation?
Can we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
We can always hope.AndyC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 amCan we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
Well we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:05 pmWe can always hope.AndyC wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:47 amCan we then hope for the same regarding the recent 9th Circus' decision that there's no right to carry?The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:37 am And I’d like to see what happens to a trial judge's career if he or she instructs the jury for ideological reasons to ignore the ruling of the higher court when considering the facts.....since the higher court's ruling is directly relevant to and the product of this case. I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t result in some form of censure, or even removal from the bench.
yep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pmWell we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.
Or, he's compromised by his own ego, and his desire to have a court legacy that isn't extreme one way or the other. Not even if he has to flip positions to keep things "neutral".powerboatr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:07 pmyep he is compromised. either through the adoption of his kid or he is guilty with Epstein stuff03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:57 pmWell we know for certain Justice Roberts cannot be counted on by conservatives. So that is one vote against the second amendment.