Why is it that we make fun of Ted Cruz’s “sternly worded letters,” but everybody is freaking the fuck out over sternly worded letters from Biden?
EO’s aren’t legally binding, except in areas where the President has that power enumerated in the Constitution. That’s why President Trump’s travel ban EO was eventually instated, but his bump stock ban was thrown out. Immigration control is the purview of the executive branch, but creating new gun laws is not.
As soon as any of these get challenged in court they’re done-zo.
Which came a little too late for the thousands (millions?) of people who were forced to either surrender their bump stocks to the police, or to destroy their own property.
We could speculate about whether bump stock owners chose to take their chances with law enforcement, to hide their bump stocks rather than getting rid of them, but the point is, they all faced legal problems if they were caught with them after Trump's diktat.
I most certainly DID vote Trump.....twice. Disagreeing with a policy /= not voting for someone. The only person whose political positions align perfectly with mine is.....ME.
GOA fought the bump stock ban because it was unconstitutional. Does it matter who did the unconstitutional thing?
The Constitution specifically states that ex post facto laws are not allowed.
Making a perfectly legal hunk of plastic ILLEGAL one day, is an example of an ex post facto law. Worse, the ban constituted an illegal taking. What were bump stock owners to do? Either surrender their formerly legal hunks of plastic to the police, or destroy them. NO compensation was offered.
The government has the power of eminent domain, to take your property to build a highway on ramp, or a hospital, or a border wall, for example. Yes, government can take your property, but it MUST compensate the property owner for what is taken. That didn't happen, did it?
Why is it that we make fun of Ted Cruz’s “sternly worded letters,” but everybody is freaking the fuck out over sternly worded letters from Biden?
EO’s aren’t legally binding, except in areas where the President has that power enumerated in the Constitution. That’s why President Trump’s travel ban EO was eventually instated, but his bump stock ban was thrown out. Immigration control is the purview of the executive branch, but creating new gun laws is not.
As soon as any of these get challenged in court they’re done-zo.
"....but his bump stock ban was thrown out."
Which came a little too late for the thousands (millions?) of people who were forced to either surrender their bump stocks to the police, or to destroy their own property.
We could speculate about whether bump stock owners chose to take their chances with law enforcement, to hide their bump stocks rather than getting rid of them, but the point is, they all faced legal problems if they were caught with them after Trump's diktat.
(edit: I didn't down vote your post, FWIW)
GOA faggots like you are why Biden is in the WH. You faggots didn't vote for Trump and we blame you first and foremost because of "muh bump stocks".
Wait. Whut?
I most certainly DID vote Trump.....twice. Disagreeing with a policy /= not voting for someone. The only person whose political positions align perfectly with mine is.....ME.
GOA fought the bump stock ban because it was unconstitutional. Does it matter who did the unconstitutional thing?
The Constitution specifically states that ex post facto laws are not allowed.
Making a perfectly legal hunk of plastic ILLEGAL one day, is an example of an ex post facto law. Worse, the ban constituted an illegal taking. What were bump stock owners to do? Either surrender their formerly legal hunks of plastic to the police, or destroy them. NO compensation was offered.
The government has the power of eminent domain, to take your property to build a highway on ramp, or a hospital, or a border wall, for example. Yes, government can take your property, but it MUST compensate the property owner for what is taken. That didn't happen, did it?