this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
115 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19138 readers
4512 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
115
Supreme court reinstates Biden’s ‘ghost gun’ restrictions for now (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] borkcorkedforks@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The rule in effect is rather narrow and doesn't actually ban home manufacturing. All the elements of a kit are still accessible and legal.

The only difference is that all the parts to finish the controlled part can't be sold together. So like you could by the 80% from one shop online and the jig from a different shop online. All the other parts wouldn't be affected in general, maybe an issue if sold with the 80%. And there are also other ways to do home manufacturing that would be completely unaffected but the rule.

Also the case isn't done. The order is a temporary stay where the court is asking the ATF lawyers to explain things.

[–] SEND_BUTTPLUG_PICS@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why is the court asking the ATF to explain anything? The ATF shouldn't be making any decisions, they should be enforcing the laws.

[–] grogthax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I get what you're saying and the question is not out of line.

It makes a bit more sense if you think of the ATF as the FDA but for guns. They're supposed to be the subject matter expert. So it's not completely out of line for the court to ask them to explain matters relating to guns.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

ATF has some rulemaking authority. For example, when Congress says "no commercial firearms sales without a licence", well, at what point between raw material and finished product is that object a firearm? ATF says it's at 80% completion.

https://www.atf.gov/news/docs/federal-rulemaking-process

[–] DarraignTheSane@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

But I want to be outraged! /s

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US supreme court on Tuesday granted a request by President Joe Biden’s administration to reinstate – at least for now – a federal regulation aimed at reining in privately made firearms called “ghost guns” that are difficult for law enforcement to trace.

The justices put on hold a 5 July decision by US district judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, that had blocked the 2022 rule nationwide pending the administration’s appeal.

O’Connor found that the administration exceeded its authority under a 1968 federal law called the Gun Control Act in implementing the rule relating to ghost guns, firearms that are privately assembled and lack the usual serial numbers required by the federal government.

More details soon…

I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago

Shame on those Republican-appointed Justices who demand heightened security for themselves while they turn our elementary and high schools into killing grounds.

[–] tallwookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

it's a bit too late for that - genie is out of the bottle now

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

God damn thats stupid. An 80% is just a chunk of metal and the ATF does not have the power to legislate.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you one of those crackpots who thinks Congress can't delegate authority to executive agencies to make regulations?

[–] SEND_BUTTPLUG_PICS@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

ATF needs to enforce the laws on the books, they don't have the authority the make rulings and they certainly shouldn't be shooting people's dogs.

[–] Nomecks@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Apparently they do

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're so upset that there might be fewer school shootings.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Where did that come from?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You support endless availability of untraceable firearms, knowing that this makes more school shootings inevitable. Or are they just a price to pay so that other mass shooters can murder the minorities you openly hate right here on lemmy?

I've seen you advocate for cruelty against "illegals." How happy are you that the El Paso shooter took matters into his own hands in order to "protect the border" by shooting up a walmart? How happy did it make you when the Club Q shooter murdered the LGBTQ people you spent so much effort lying about on that recent thread about trans rights?

Where did that come from?

Simple. I'm sick of your shit. You cheer for cruelty. You spread bigotry. And then you whine like you're the most oppressed creature ever when someone tells you what you already know you are.

EDIT: And when you catch an instancewide ban, you come back with the same username on a different instance.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

  1. We've had "endless availability of untraceable firearms" since before mass manufacturing was invented. Mass shootings have only become popular in the past couple of decades. It is not the guns.

  2. Wanting illegals to be deported is a good thing, and its racist to assume illegals are minority races.

  3. No one likes mass shootings.

  4. Wtf is wrong with you? Do you have reading comprehension issues? Are you so deep in your echochamber you think others to be genocidal monsters?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We’ve had “endless availability of untraceable firearms” since before mass manufacturing was invented. Mass shootings have only become popular in the past couple of decades. It is not the guns.

Sure. The mass shootings are being carried out with some object other than guns.

Wanting illegals to be deported is a good thing, and its racist to assume illegals are minority races.

You wouldn't be calling them by the dehumanizing term "illegals" if they were white.

No one likes mass shootings.

Bullshit. Gun manufacturers LOVE them. Every time some piece of shit carries out Republican policy in person, sales go up.

Wtf is wrong with you?

I'm tired of mass shootings. Just because you can't get enough of them, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me.

Are you so deep in your echochamber you think others to be genocidal monsters?

Knowing that Republicans cheer when a genocidal monster advocates for the eradication of trans people* is not the result of being an an echochamber. It's simply paying attention to what they're willing to say in public.

*the only difference between "eradicating trans people" and "eradicating transgenderism" is that the latter also requires eradication of the mere idea that trans people even exist. That's nazi shit and it's why you support it.

[–] Melkath@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because you are doing the "They turk ma gunz!" herp derp opposing the regulation, and the purpose of the regulation is to reduce school shootings.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well thats a terrible ruling, it doesn't address school shootings at all. All it does is allow congress to not do their job.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it doesn’t address school shootings at all.

If that were the case, no conservative would be upset.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wait, do you actually think conservatives want school shootings?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Their policies indicate so, yes.

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

What have they done to stop them?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many school shootings have been perpetrated with ghost guns in the last 10 years? The answer is 4. How many school shootings have there been in the last 10 years? The answer is 180. So there are clearly better ways to address the problem of school shootings. Let's never look at the actual causes though. Let's just keep banning things!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I also hate mondays.