comment: >
  
  Absolutely. The ATF should not be allowed to interpret laws on a whim. That frustrates the hell out of me. They act like they’re both executive and judicial branch.
context: This creates a circuit split, meaning it is much more likely the Supreme Court will take it up if asked. Another case to look forward to in the future. >
  
  Meaning the 5th circuit court will be upheld. >
  
  At this rate, soon felons will legally own firearms. >
  
  Yeah but how do you actually enforce these laws? >
  
  By prosecuting when prohibited people are found to be in possession. >
  
  How do you find them to be in possession? Does the ATF install security cameras in every domicile in which a felon happens to live? >
  
  Republicans must be furious that the courts stopped Trump's bump stock ban. >
  
  Folks in the gun community of my deeply red state have been very accepting of the ban.
  But from reading the article, it looks like it’s the issue of whether bump stocks meet the legal definition of ‘machinegun’ in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. >
  
  It’s super interesting because the gun community started to split around that time between what seems like the constitutionalists, the maga deep red republicans, and the more moderates. 
  I don’t really know where I stand on bump stocks as someone who is generally pro gun, but it was interesting to watch the schism form in real time. >
  
  I noticed within left-leaning circles there’s been a divide about it as well.
  Could be partially about trust in government; I’m not sure where I fall either but I know I wouldn’t want to leave these things up to ambiguous interpretation by law enforcement agencies.