The court's 6-3 conservative majority has expanded gun rights but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up new cases on the scope of the right to bear arms.
it’s wild to me that the Court struck down the ban on bump stocks in Cargill, which are obviously unusual devices without a history of use for self-defense (and strained to misinterpret the “by a single function of the trigger” language of the NFA) yet they decline to overturn this decision.
where’s the internal consistency? you’d think they’d at least follow precedent they themselves set.
Sometimes it’s just to let the various lower courts litigate every angle first, and other times it’s because they are waiting for a more perfect case. It’s very easy to make bad case law as SCOTUS, so they decline to hear even obvious cases on the regular.
it’s wild to me that the Court struck down the ban on bump stocks in Cargill, which are obviously unusual devices without a history of use for self-defense (and strained to misinterpret the “by a single function of the trigger” language of the NFA) yet they decline to overturn this decision.
where’s the internal consistency? you’d think they’d at least follow precedent they themselves set.
Sometimes it’s just to let the various lower courts litigate every angle first, and other times it’s because they are waiting for a more perfect case. It’s very easy to make bad case law as SCOTUS, so they decline to hear even obvious cases on the regular.