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

His concurrence in Cargill and his dissent in Rybar do not counteract the NFA, quite the contrary. He stipulates that congress has the power to regulate machineguns.
In Rybar he postulates that "the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the commerce clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element". He is not opposed to the restriction, the dissent is the manner used to justify jurisdiction for the restrictions.
In Cargill, he concurs that because of the statutory language the ATF cannot redefine a machinegun but Congress can do so and therefore ban bumpstocks. Alito speaks about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting saying"That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bumpstock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for ammending 5845(b)" "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law"

Alito is clearly for closing any legal argument against the NFA's treatment of machineguns.

<blockquote data-quote="pastera" data-source="post: 9464326" data-attributes="member: 28768">His concurrence in Cargill and his dissent in Rybar do not counteract the NFA, quite the contrary. He stipulates that congress has the power to regulate machineguns.In Rybar he postulates that &quot;the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the commerce clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element&quot;. He is not opposed to the restriction, the dissent is the manner used to justify jurisdiction for the restrictions.In Cargill, he concurs that because of the statutory language the ATF cannot redefine a machinegun but Congress can do so and therefore ban bumpstocks. Alito speaks about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting saying&quot;That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bumpstock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for ammending 5845(b)&quot; &quot;There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law&quot;Alito is clearly for closing any legal argument against the NFA&#039;s treatment of machineguns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pastera, post: 9464326, member: 28768"] His concurrence in Cargill and his dissent in Rybar do not counteract the NFA, quite the contrary. He stipulates that congress has the power to regulate machineguns. In Rybar he postulates that "the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the commerce clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element". He is not opposed to the restriction, the dissent is the manner used to justify jurisdiction for the restrictions. In Cargill, he concurs that because of the statutory language the ATF cannot redefine a machinegun but Congress can do so and therefore ban bumpstocks. Alito speaks about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting saying"That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bumpstock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for ammending 5845(b)" "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law" Alito is clearly for closing any legal argument against the NFA's treatment of machineguns. [/QUOTE]

Verification