Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
I have to admit I am a little surprised by this decision SCOTUS UPHOLDS BUMP STOCK BAN
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3869810" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I read on another forum that the lower court has to re-examine the case based on the Bruen and EPA SCOTUS decisions, which weren’t in play when the case was originally ruled on? </p><p></p><p>If that’s the case, the lower court is basically being told to fix their own legally flawed ruling? <img src="/images/smilies/anyone.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":anyone:" title="Anyone :anyone:" data-shortname=":anyone:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3869810, member: 1132"] I read on another forum that the lower court has to re-examine the case based on the Bruen and EPA SCOTUS decisions, which weren’t in play when the case was originally ruled on? If that’s the case, the lower court is basically being told to fix their own legally flawed ruling? :anyone: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
I have to admit I am a little surprised by this decision SCOTUS UPHOLDS BUMP STOCK BAN
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom