Brian Lane lawfully purchased three bump stocks before the rule took effect and raises a Fifth Amendment challenge that the federal government must compensate him for taking his property. The federal government responds that the rule falls under a valid use of the police power, which requires no compensation. But as explained below, the federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself. It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed thestates whole. Assuming the federal government didn’t abolish the states to take their police power, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will allow the federal government to try again and explain which enumerated power justifies the federal regulation and whether it allows a taking without compensation. [More]The whole business of taking in the first place isn't resolved and the judge seems to accept the 'bump stocks were used" contention with no official confirmation, but this does throw a nice wrinkle into things plus appears to my untutored mind to create a conflict between courts, a requirement for SCOTUS reconsideration.
[Via Stephen Stamboulieh]
2 comments:
states' rights have not existed since 1865.
“It is concerning that the federal government believes it swallowed the states whole.”
A common failure.
“Tell me again why they call me governor instead of branch manager.”
--GOV. BEN NELSON (NE)
Post a Comment