• derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?

      • derf82@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.

        I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.