If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***

Reply to thread

Message

At this point this isn't about granting or denying cert. If they were going to deny, it would have happened since they've had more than sufficient time to write a dissent of denial.
That leaves either a different question or political subdivision.
Could the different question be US v Brown (5th circuit)? This would give them the ability to side step "assault weapons" and speak directly to machine guns, which will go against us. But in doing so, they could say that anything not a machinegun is protected.
Complete cop out but would split the baby by giving both sides something (congress then only needs to update the NFA definition of machinegun to ban all semiautomatics)
Or they could be kicking the can because of external influences that have dirt on one or more justices.

[QUOTE="pastera, post: 9444516, member: 28768"] At this point this isn't about granting or denying cert. If they were going to deny, it would have happened since they've had more than sufficient time to write a dissent of denial. That leaves either a different question or political subdivision. Could the different question be US v Brown (5th circuit)? This would give them the ability to side step "assault weapons" and speak directly to machine guns, which will go against us. But in doing so, they could say that anything not a machinegun is protected. Complete cop out but would split the baby by giving both sides something (congress then only needs to update the NFA definition of machinegun to ban all semiautomatics) Or they could be kicking the can because of external influences that have dirt on one or more justices. [/QUOTE]

Verification