BREAKING: Chief Justice John Roberts Refuses to Block Bump Stock Ban

Courtesy RWArms.com

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts turned away an emergency bid to block the BATF ban on so-called “bump stocks”.  Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Satomayor has a second similar request.  Nobody in America expects Satomayor to rule any differently in her case.

Reuters has the story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday rejected a bid by gun rights activists to put on hold a ban by President Donald Trump’s administration on “bump stock” gun attachments that enable semi-automatic weapons to be fired rapidly.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has not yet acted on another similar request. The ban goes into effect on Tuesday but lower courts have yet to rule on an appeals brought by gun rights activists in Michigan and the U.S. capital.

Trump pledged to ban the devices soon after a gunman used them to shoot and kill 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October 2017. The Justice Department on Dec. 18 announced plans to implement the policy.

A Washington-based federal district court judge in February upheld the ban, prompting gun rights advocates to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court heard oral arguments on Friday but has not yet ruled. The appeals court, however, say that the ban cannot go into effect in relation to the specific individuals and groups challenging it.

Just to be clear, Roberts’ refusal does not affect the lower court stays that had been granted for the plaintiffs in the Tenth and DC Circuit suits, including members of the Firearms Policy Foundation.

We have a number of stories about the Bump Stock ban in recent days.

BREAKING: DC Circuit Expands Bump Stock Ban Temporary Stay to All Firearms Policy Foundation Members

BREAKING: DC Circuit Issues Gun Owner a Temporary Stay of ATF’s Bump Stock Ban

Firearms Policy Foundation, GOA Ask SCOTUS to Stop Bump Stock Ban Enforcement

Texas Retailer RW Arms to Surrender 60,000 Bump Stocks to ATF Tomorrow

Bump Stock Ban – This Is What Modern Gun Confiscation Looks Like

comments

  1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    Pretty obvious Roberts has gone dark.
    That said I am not sure the case is ready for the Supreme Court.

    1. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

      Obama: “If you don’t agree that the Obamacare penalty is really a tax, I will have your family killed.”

      Roberts: “Okay.”

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        Personally think they caught him with kitty porn!

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          His kids were possibly adopted illegally (ie smuggled). If true there could be bribery/etc associated with that, as opposed to it being an “honest mistake.” If that were true, it would irrevocably damage his reputation as a judge, and open him up to impeachment proceedings (“good behavior”). Family, livelihood, and reputation all rolled into one stupid decision; that’d be some powerful ‘dirt’ for these purposes.

          More likely, he’s just a Fudd who supports handfuns for self defense, like every other “pro-gun” justice we’ve had except maybe (big maybe) Thomas. Oh, and like half or more of so-called “pro-gun” people who aren’t bothered by this Travesty because Trump’s signature is on it.

      2. avatar Wendell Fountain says:

        On more than one occasion, I have read accounts about the illegal adoption of his children, and the evil creeps have used that against him.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      Get over it, none of the Justices wanted to take it on. The only other choice was to eventually overturn the ban and wait for the legislation to come down from Congress, and what a circus that would have been. I don’t think either side wanted that to happen. But if it did, best bet would that not just bump stocks would have been banned, but who know what else.

      If the pro-gun side tried to attach something to the legislation, Pelosi would have been screaming bloody murder. And if the anti-gun side would have tried to extend the ban, again Pelosi would have been screaming bloody murder when the pro gun side tried to block it.

      Put in some videos of a PROPERLY set up slide fire mowing down silhouettes of people, and you can say good bye to 2020.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        2020 is already lost; Trump won by only 200,000 votes, and just flushed over 2X that number down the toilet today. You also have 5X that number of felons getting registered to vote in swing state Florida which he can’t afford to lose.

        I *WANT* congress to pass a ban. If we’re gonna have a ban, that’s how we do it in this country. So we know where all the closeted anti-gun Republicans stand, so we can replace those tools or ensure they lose to openly hostile Dems as a fallback. Trump showed his colors & will lose for it (just wait; he’ll blame his ‘beloved’ gun owner cucks for his loss before it’s all said & done), but who knows how many more antigun Republicans like Scott or Graham will escape a similar fate since they were never forced to go on record.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Yep. If a ban is going to happen, it had better come from Congress, for all those reasons. Plus Congress is the only entity constitutionally allowed to write new laws — which this is.

          If this stands, there will be absolute HELL to pay next time a progressive Democrat occupies the Oval Office. And it’ll happen sooner than most here seem to think.

          I would SO MUCH rather have a congressional ban than what’s happening now. Most people don’t seem to see how truly dangerous and destabilizing this situation is.

        2. avatar Jack Crawford says:

          @barnbwt; “..So we know where all the closeted anti-gun Republicans stand, so we can replace those tools or ensure they lose to openly hostile Dems as a fallback. Trump showed his colors & will lose for it”

          Wow, that’s a great strategy, replace R’s with “HOSTILE Dem’s” (and according to your statement Trump also) that is Brilliant! If you’re a F-ing Moron!!

          Now for a Soros paid troll, makes perfect sense. You fly back to Soros, little barnbwt. Fly, fly, fly. Fly, fly, fly.

        3. avatar DN says:

          2020 is already lost; Trump won by only 200,000 votes, and just flushed over 2X that number down the toilet today. ….
          so we can replace those tools or ensure they lose to openly hostile Dems as a fallback.

          Most moronic post ever on TTAG. Please LOOK at the Senate vote on Kavanaugh.

          And Trump did not lose a single vote with the bump stock ban, it was an end run around Feinstiens much broader legislation.
          This story is about he GOA RIPPING off its idiot contributors. with the GOA posturing on a court filing that was doomed

        4. avatar Christopher Hanson says:

          Yo DN Trump did not win the votes, he won electoral votes but lost the popular by millions, thanks Cali. To think of all the “safe” cities in Cali. I think I know why he lost that state.

    3. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      The man abducted two children from Ireland, it’s safe to say he has always been dark.

    4. avatar Anonymous says:

      SC should block. They probably won’t because of political correctness. The words of the law matter and a bump stock does not fit the definition of a machine gun, which is precisely why the ATF couldn’t ban it prior – even with less gun friendly administrations. A machine gun is:

      26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. ​ The frame or receiver of any such weapon.

      A “bump stock” does not operate by a “single function of the trigger”. You have to push with your left hand while keeping your right hand and trigger finger perfectly aligned/placed. It is not a machine gun.

      The ATF and Trump’s magic pen do not “make” law. That is congress’ job. Hopefully, wiser minds will prevail from the courts.

    5. Roberts is the sack that the crap comes in.

  2. avatar rc says:

    Yep, as if it wasn’t obvious a long time ago…Roberts is the new Souter.

  3. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Wow, who didn’t see that coming? /s

    1. avatar User1 says:

      But Q Anon said not to worry because Trump was going to fix everything by now.

      Trump knows how to play 4D chess better than anyone ever to hold office. He was sent by God to save us all. Alex Jones said Trump would bring back Jesus and purge the world of evil.

      You guys just have to wait for the plan to be fully realized. By 2024 America will be restored.

  4. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    the supreme’s are just like any other lawyer,they will trade one case for another. it is time to audio-check all communications between them so they can not trade cases off.

  5. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    You’re suprised why? Roberts threw us under the bus on Obama Care, too. He’s liberal activist. A blind man can see it.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      He is a weak link to a originalist majority court,of course as a Bush league appointee no one should be surprised.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    All eyes on RBG.

    1. avatar million says:

      NYSRPA vs NYC isn’t going to be heard until next year, IIRC, so there’s still time to get a pro-2A justice on there. Otherwise it’s a 5-4 loss with Chief Justice Penaltax the Dem’s swing vote.

  7. avatar Leslie says:

    The US Supreme Court receives ~40,000 petitions every year, and is only able to act on ~400 of them. the other ~39,600 of them are passed on to Lower Federal Courts. The US Supreme Court is [Chief Justice] John Roberts Court, not [Associate Justice] Brett Kavanaugh’s Court or [Associate Justice] Neil Gorsuch’s Court. Roberts can run his Court anyway he likes, and is Accountable to No One, including the President of the United States or the NRA…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s a great danger in the Supreme Court having created the doctrine of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison. The power was never explicitly granted to the Court by the Constitution. The chickens have come home to roost!

      “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” – Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804

      “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820

      http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

      1. avatar Leslie says:

        I suspect even the US Supreme Court has a Vetting Process as to What and Which Cases IT (i.e. the US Supreme Court) is going to Act On. And Chief Justice John Roberts being the Chief Arbiter OFF the Vetting Process…

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Wrong again. It only takes four SC justices to take a case, meaning to take accept a case for full hearing and decision. The CJ doesn’t have any super vote in that regard. It takes five justices to issue a stay, whether preventing a ban like this from taking effect or halting an execution, for example. Votes to issue a stay are a separate matter from hearing the entire case and ruling on its merits. Stays just freeze the situation on the ground to prevent permanent injuries and allow time for the issue to be sorted out, usually by the courts.

      2. avatar 41mag says:

        TJ hittin on Abby Adams with personal letters to her…

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      That’s not accurate. There is the obvious relief of impeachment and removal from office after conviction by the Senate. 15 federal judges have been impeached, including two supreme court justices, over the years 1803 to 2010. 8 of those were convicted and 3 resigned. So there is that. No SC justices have been removed via conviction, but Justice Abe Fortas was threatened with impeached and the strong likelihood of being convicted. He chose to resign. Now, in fairness, most of these cases involved financial scandals or personal character matters, not differences over rulings or conduct of the court itself.

      Your mention of the number of petitions the SC receives is irrelevant. The SC must rule on EVERY petition, regardless. You’re conflating petitions for all purposes with petitions to hear the full case. That’s two separate issues. Granted, the court cannot hear ever full case they are petitioned to hear. Thus, the low percentage you cited. That’s irrelevant to this case, which is just for a an emergency stay temporarily preventing the government from enforcing the ban. That’s separate from a full case hearing and ruling on the merits of the case. Roberts could have ruled for or against this petition and had no impact on the court’s caseload because this wasn’t a petition to hear the entire case, just to rule on the stay.

      Still, what all of these justices want is short term celebration in the media and on the D.C. cocktail party circuit, and long term veneration by historians. Regardless what specific legal or administrative mechanisms exist to curb the court or remove its members, their perception of how they’re being regarded in the present and will be in the future does weigh heavily on these justices. Toward that end, lots of people including the president, members of congress, pundits, writers, scholars, the general public, you name it, can all contribute to how those perceptions are formed. They don’t just sit in isolation and decide with impunity.

      1. avatar Leslie says:

        And the Likelihood of the US Senate having enough votes for a Super Major Vote of 67 is exactly WHAT? Let alone the “Nuclear Option” of 60 votes…

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        You’re arguing with Thomas Jefferson too, FYI. Even though they might be impeached, the odds are slim?

        Judicial Review has been devastating to the nation and will eventually destroy liberty.

        http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/284/Thomas_Jeffersons_Reaction

    3. avatar Gadsden says:

      So if your so smart, then why do you think capitalizing certain words, where no capitalization is warranted, makes you sound more important? Perhaps you need an English class. I suppose they don’t teach english in liberal schools anymore. Makes sense really. Stop teaching kids to write in cursive, stop teaching them English, and they won’t be able to read the constitution without a “properly trained interpreter.”

      1. avatar Leslie says:

        And you don’t “Capitalize, Boldface, or Underline” DO YOU…

        1. avatar Gadsden says:

          Sure don’t. Did you see any of that in my post? Again, an English class would teach you these things. But I’m sure you consider English a racist class.

  8. avatar Tikhar says:

    The 2nd Amendment will not be guaranteed in the Supreme Court until another vacancy is opened. Then Roberts’ do-nothing bullshit centrism will be nothing more than theatrics.

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      And Exactly how’s that!/? John Roberts is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Not anyone else. So unless Chief Justice John Roberts decided to Retire or Dies in Office, HE’s still the “Chief Justice”…

      1. avatar jarret says:

        Fear is what you feel Leslie. That fear is well founded and is picking up speed. Once the dems torpedo this election, like they did the last, Trump will be re elected and RBG will die. Then the court will be solidly conservative no matter who is ‘cheif’ of it, as you so eloquently put. In other words….the end is nigh for the ANTIS those who think the 2nd is not comparable to the other amendments. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          RBG is dead. They just won’t admit it.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        So? The CJ job is largely ceremonial and a matter of prestige. He earns a few more bucks than the Associate Justices and the court is named after him during his tenure, but his actual incremental power above the other justices is minuscule and largely administrative. He has final say over parking spot assignments and the cafeteria menu, but he doesn’t get any special voting rights on cases.

        Aside from presiding over Senate impeachment trials alone, his big decision making power is assigning who writes the decision of the court for each case. That decision falls on the most senior justice (by tenure, not age) in the majority, but always goes to the CJ whenever he is in the majority. That decision making power can carry influence among the court members, but it isn’t a monumental, constitutional exercise of power. Thomas is the most senior justice currently, having taken office in 1991. He and Roberts are more likely to be in the majority together than not. So Roberts being CJ trumps Thomas’s tenure.

        1. avatar Leslie says:

          And how does Stacking the Court change the Pecking Order within the US Supreme Court!/? Chief Justice IS STILL “Chief Justice”…

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The 2nd Amendment will not be guaranteed in the Supreme Court.”

      FIFY

      1. avatar Tikhar says:

        Well unfortunately I don’t see any other way. When a state harbors a festering liberal hivecity that has enough of a population to have moonbats as a majority in the legislature, getting laws through is tough. If we want our gun laws in every state to resemble what the Framers had in mind (ie access to the same weapons as an infantryman) then having the SC slap them down seems like the only solution.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Read the Second Amendment again. The real solution lies in why there is that amendment and how it is crafted. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the People to cast of tyranny and secure their liberty. A court wielding unconstitutional power is no solution. A people will either free themselves or they won’t. Relying on an organ of government to do it is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

          There’s the true solution. It was in front of everyone the whole time.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “If we want our gun laws in every state to resemble what the Framers had in mind (ie access to the same weapons as an infantryman) then having the SC slap them down seems like the only solution.”

          The Constitution doesn’t limit arms to just those same weapons as an infantryman. It is not limited. Check out the history. Canons, artillery, explosives and a whole host of other things are necessary to the security of a free state.

          “gun laws in every state”

          That is at complete odds with “shall not be infringed.”

  9. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    No surprises here. Wonder how many coins he lost, flippin em like that.

  10. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The only consolation to Roberts turning into Kennedy is Ginsburg turned 86 this month. Only three Justices in the history of SCOTUS were older when they left office and she will pass one of them before the end of next year. While Trump has been far less than we had hoped he will very likely appoint her replacement during his next term as well as possibly replacing Breyer who turns 81 this year.

    The acturarial tables are in our favor and Trumps court appointments have been uniformly excellent. We have to take the long view and fight the near term battles until we get there.

  11. avatar Ross says:

    And this is why I do not rely on the supreme court to decide what my rights are under the constitution I can read them for myself.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep.

      That’s also why the Constitution never explicitly granted the Court the power of Judicial Review. It was never supposed to have Judicial Review. T. Jefferson warned all in response to Marbury v. Madison.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Of course Jefferson was against the ruling in Marbury. The Court ruled against him for having prevented Marbury from receiving his commission to be justice of the peace, despite having been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Jefferson ultimately won the case, though, in that the Court ruled it didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter because Congress didn’t have the unilateral authority to grant the SC jurisdiction. That’s what was declared unconstitutional; that’s what judicial review is.

        Really, that case is said to have “established” judicial review, and I agree it did formalize the principle. However, when you have the Constitution vesting judicial power in the SC and the Constitution declaring through the Supremacy Clause that the Constitution trumps all else, then the principle of judicial review can only exist.

        After all, laws conflict all the time, then as now, and sometimes they conflict with the Constitution. Who’s going to decide that if not the SC, the one vested with judicial power extending to ALL CASES arising under the Constitution and the laws of the U.S.? Without judicial review, there really isn’t a judiciary. It’s a hollow branch of government providing no check or balance against the other two branches, what CJ Marshall himself described as “form without substance.”

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Judicial Review was created anew in that case. It is not a power explicitly granted the Court by the Constitution. Regardless of TJ’s interest in the case, the truth of the matter remains that it was an unconstitutional power grab by the Court and it is the root of all judicial activism. Without it, all the constitutional damage of the Supreme Court would’ve been impossible.

          It required a constitution amendment to grant that power to the Court. Instead, the Supreme Court wiped its ass with the Constitution and has been prone to doing so ever since.

          ‘After all, laws conflict all the time, then as now, and sometimes they conflict with the Constitution. Who’s going to decide that if not the SC, the one vested with judicial power extending to ALL CASES arising under the Constitution and the laws of the U.S.? Without judicial review, there really isn’t a judiciary. It’s a hollow branch of government providing no check or balance against the other two branches, what CJ Marshall himself described as “form without substance.”’

          This is often the argument presented. The problem is that the Court was not explicitly granted that power. It was debated but never made the cut for the ratified constitution. It didn’t make it for very good reasons; which we see today. If they wanted the power, they needed a constitutional amendment. It was improper for the Court to unconstitutionally invest itself with that power.

          If government doesn’t control who has guns then who will? Yes, yes… There is that pesky Constitution. But who will? It’s the same bullshit argument. Want to get rid of lawful gun ownership? Pass a constitutional amendment. Want to grant the Supreme Court a power not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution? Pass a constitutional amendment. You don’t ban gun ownership by fiat. You don’t grant the Court a power by fiat. That’s not rule of law.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Marshall’s argument and all other arguments as to “Who will?” fall apart because it was already debated before the Constitution was ratified. Judicial Review for the Supreme Court did not make the cut. Why have a constitution when an arm of government can change it without real oversight or amendment?

          The writings of Hamilton were not ratified. The written Constitution was.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    And who’s surprised? The younger McCain…

  13. avatar Justin Robins says:

    Slavery is just a tax.

  14. avatar hal_greaves says:

    RINO Roberts strikes again

  15. avatar JR Pollock says:

    It breaks my heart to type this, especially since I defended Roberts yesterday regarding his record on gun rights cases. This is his first betrayal, now it remains to be seen whether he’s become the “new Kennedy” or not regarding serious 2A issues.

    I hope this is a one time thing.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      We won’t know until the NY Pistol case is heard, and by then, it will be too late.

      What’s in our favor is, he ruled twice the 2A is an individual right in the home.

      We can hope he extends that right to outside the home, and all across the land…

  16. avatar Grumpster says:

    I am not surprised by this but to me this does not mean Justice Roberts has gone anti Second Amendment. Let’s wait and see what happens with the NYC case coming up.

  17. avatar Alan says:

    In the first instance I’m not amongst who knows how many people own Bump Stocks, singular or plural. In the second place, I have no interest whatever in these devices. That said, it is also obvious that the fuss and furor over and about Bump Stocks is simply a “stalking horse” for ever more restrictions on the basic rights of American Citizens. Given that obvious conclusion, the following question is one that people, including, perhaps especially the Chief Justice of The U.S. Supreme Court need to answer. Exactly where and when does this anti constitutional rights, anti civil rights cabal get stopped?

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      By my crude calculations, with one or two more ill conceived new laws, we deplorable, illegal gun people will soon outnumber illegal aliens. Guess who’ll be treated better.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I believe it was Justice Roberts who was the deciding vote in the McDonald case stating that the Second Amendment applied not only to the individual but also that right to have a gun in your home.

    He saved the 2nd Amendment for all of us. And I will always be grateful to Justice Roberts for that. And Im very disappointed in the bump stock case. However I’m not surprised. Most people in the gun Community are not supporters of the individual right to own a machine gun. Most of them are very happy to have the prices so high that they are priced out of the hands of ordinary law-abiding citizens.

    If the Second Amendment does not apply to rapid fire weapons then the Second Amendment really isn’t written to defend against a tyrannical government. Because the ordinary citizen doesn’t have access to the same weapons that the government has.

    Then how can you fight the government when the time comes?

    The Bundy Ranch was successful because the good guys had more guns and better guns than the bad, government, guys did.

    Assuming you get to keep them in the future how are bolt action rifles, double barrel shotguns, and black powder weapons going to fare against government select fire M16s and machine guns???

  19. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    “F”em give up nothing now or even later.
    Im waiting for this to all go through the courts.
    Now I can say F em because I don’t own a bump stock.
    But even if I did I wouldn’t give up anything. An inertial trigger or even a crank. Period.
    Ive had enough.
    Im never giving up anything without compensation.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Government couldn’t compensate me enough to give up my Liberty Teeth.

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    They aught to move on articles of impeachment for Roberts. His decisions have been, for the most part, bad.

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      And what are you going to Base the Impeachment on! Being too Partial to the Constitution of the United States as a whole, or not being Partial enough on the Second Amendment…

      1. avatar 24and7 says:

        He lied multiple times during his confirmation process about his support for the Second Amendment..

        1. avatar Leslie says:

          Was Chief Justice John Roberts “Loyalty Oath” to Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States, or to ramrod through any and all legislation into law that pertains to the Second Amendment only. Keep in mind, that the Republicans controlled the US Senate in 2005 with a 55 to 45 majority, and confirmed by a 78 to 22 vote…

      2. avatar 24and7 says:

        If Roberts was defending the Constitution he would take up these cases of infringement and rule against them..nuff said..

        1. avatar Leslie says:

          So out of the Twenty Seven Amendments within the US Constitution, Chief Justice Roberts attention to the 2nd Amendment should be “What”?/! 50% or 99.99997%…

  21. avatar Feds Lie says:

    ATF was created through fraud.

    No Jurisdiction —– The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the United States of America (the “Union”), except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms who failed to pay the tax on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993, ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that the BATF has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don’t have jurisdiction over subsequent sales.

    The Federal Alcohol Administration, which administered the Federal Alcohol Act, and offices of members and Administrator thereof, were abolished and their functions were directed to be administered under direction and supervision of the Secretary of Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, now the Internal Revenue Service. The Federal Alcohol Act was ruled unconstitutional within the 50 States, so it was transferred to the BIR, which is an offshore trust, which became the IRS, which gave birth to the BATF and, somehow, the term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, which is a person within the BATF, spawned the alleged Internal Revenue Service via another flick of the pen on September 15, 1976. In a brilliant flash of logic, Wayne C. Bentson determined that he could check these facts by filing a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request, asking the BATF to “name the person who now administers the Federal Alcohol Act.” If we were wrong, then a reply would state that no record exists as to any name of any person who administers the Act. The request was submitted to the BATF. The reply came on July 14, 1994, from the Secret Service, an unexpected source, which discloses a connection we had not suspected. The reply states that John Magaw of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, of the Department of the Treasury, administers the Federal Alcohol Act. You may remember from the Waco hearings that John Magaw is the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. All of our research was confirmed by that admission.

    BATF – IRS criminal fraud research by Dan Meador + William Cooper

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Roberts is the new Kennedy.

  23. avatar Dexter Winslett says:

    Water the Tree Of Liberty with the blood of tyrants.

  24. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Time to purge that unamerican pedo

  25. avatar KGMAIDEN says:

    Roberts, ASSHAT phony.

  26. avatar KGMAIDEN says:

    Yup. And thats why it will be very dangerous to bring ANY pro 2A arguments before those black robed bench sitting gods.

  27. avatar L. Shamus McQuade says:

    I am former British SAS and now and American Citizen. Thru the LEGAL Channels I cannot understand why Americans would want a bump stock to shoot simulated auto. Most I see at the gun range using bump stocks here are goofy trailer trash with huge stomachs, thighs and rude behavior acting like a fictional character out of the movies to somehow massage their low self esteem and lack of knowledge. I shoot with US Marines and Navy SEALS retired and they don’t have bump stocks. I am all for having military rifles for range and hunting. But Bump stocks, really!!??. These people who continue to cry about the bump stock ban are the same ones who created the Gun Issue more than it has to be by making a lighting rod for the anti gun movement. These are the same people I see at the range and should NOT be the voice of gun owning Americans, only smart educated pro gun and 2nd amendment should carry the argument and for the goofy trailer trash, let the ADULTS handle the protection of the 2nd amendment

  28. avatar Grover Syck says:

    We may finally be headed in the right direction.
    The bump stocks must be destroyed or turned in.
    Machine guns are illegal, and this device makes a semi-automatic a full automatic.
    We now need to get the “assault weap9ons” off the market and out of the hands of the American people.

  29. avatar Hal Lemoyne says:

    cj john roberts is another motherfking politician demoncrat that has/is parading as Republican

    I mean there needs to be US Law condemning such crap

    GO TO HELL cj john roberts!!!

  30. avatar Pfulk says:

    Roberts claimed there wasn’t any such thing as an Obama judge but constituents to prove he’s exactly that. He was Ibamas roommate in college. Fortunately there are currently only two anti Constitutional judges on the Supreme Court. Roberts and Sodomeyer. Rather that uphholdingnthevlaw they keep rewriting g it which in fact is illegal.

  31. avatar John Morello says:

    Grover Syck you are a stupid fuck who knows nothing about firearms. I volunteer at a shooting range. We do not allow “bump stocks” but we do allow full auto firearms. FYI, a bump stock increases the rate of fire. For the firearm to function you must pull the trigger for each shot, i.e., one shot per one trigger pull. BTW, there is a lever device for a Ruger 10-22 that increases the rate of fire by 300%. The device simply pulls the trigger much faster than a human can. You are a stupid liberal puke.

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      And where exactly in “Grover Syck” comment is “Bump Stock” being mention, being used on “Firing Ranges”…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email