comment: >
  
  Right, but if the judges actually applied the law evenly, the locale where you sued wouldn’t affect the ruling. The 5th circuit is a clown show.
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. >
  
  I just don’t think violent felons should be allowed too. >
  
  They won’t be able to vote but they will be able to shoot >
  
  It's pretty messed up that they can't vote either. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Our courts literally cannot do the right thing, ever. >
  
  I don't understand how this got shopped around as much as it did. Per the article, "The ban had survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the federalcircuit court in Washington. A panel of three judges at the 5th Circuitalso issued a ruling in favor of the ban, upholding a lower courtdecision by a Texas federal judge."
  How do we have rule of law if someone can just infinitely shop until they find the right Circuit to kill laws?  
  EDIT: I suppose it would be better to say 'regulation' than 'law', but the general point and my confusion stands. >
  
  
  I don't understand how this got shopped around as much as it did.
  
  Different people in different states bringing suits in their local jurisdictions. >
  
  It’s a federal ban though. >
  
  Yes, but the way that federal courts work is that you'd challenge the legality of a federal criminal law in the federal district where you were charged.