My question was whether law enforcement typically requests the same data from private carriers that it does from USPS, not whether they open your mail.
It needs to be kept in mind that this ruling is not really about so-called “gun rights” but part of the Right’s concerted attack on the ability of the federal government to tie the hands of private actors in any capacity. The goal is to gum up the works such that any dispute over any interpretation of technical language must come before a panel of (ideally right-wing, FedSoc) judges, rather than the technical experts vested by Congress with the power to make such interpretations.
Of, if you actually read the opinion of the court in it's own words:
"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act."
No, they can't. The process was designed to obstruct laws being written. That was intended to protect minority interests, but it means that even large majorities cannot pass laws.
And when, after superhuman effort, a law does finally get passed, the Court has nearly unlimited ability to say "No, that's not good enough, either."
The argument is meant to suggest, "Well, all you need is a simple majority. If you can't get that then clearly this is the correct outcome".
Except that it's not a simple majority. You have to pass the House and the Senate, by a filibuster-proof margin, and the President. And that's without taking into account the ways gerrymandering and the way the Senate favors small states. So it's a deception to suggest that we don't get such a law because a majority doesn't want it.
So that opinion is a lie. The Congress can't act, and they know it. That doesn't make their decision wrong, but it does imply that they feel the need to misdirect about it.
The problem is the process you describe is the same for all laws, if that system doesn't work, fuck it, appoint a head of agency that has the current leaderships opinion to reinterpret the meaning of a policy, and change the policy without requiring the law making body to play any role in that.
If we set that sort of precedence, and the wrong people get appointed to say the department of health, or the department of education then suddenly what is legal and what isn't shifts quickly, and with no recourse.
I don't care about bump stocks, they can make them illegal tomorrow, but it should be done through the same legal channels that our government is based on. And not as a work around because they couldn't get it done in the framework that is agreed upon.
Given that their particular wording of their argument is actually what is going to be used by lower courts in the future, you literally take what they have written at face value.
+1 the OP hasn't offered anything resembling evidence for their position anyway. It's worth noting that 3 of the supreme court justices who voted to lift this ban were appointed by the president who ordered the ban. Is this an example of the famous "4D chess" we've been hearing about?
The ATF are far from "technical experts." Did you not see the recent video of the ATF's Firearms Ammunition Technology Division Chief was unable to disassemble a Glock pistol? That's like a 4 second operation.
Yes, it was indeed bad when Petain decreed Reynaud's arrest and handed him over to the Nazis to be imprisoned in a concentration camp. It's unclear what connection this has with the conviction of Donald Trump by a jury of his peers for falsifying business records.
Let's be fair - he probably would've fired a man in the same situation. When you're making panicked, emotionally driven decisions and someone or something gets in the way of what you want, the obvious response is to smash them as hard as possible.
From other news on the quality of Chinese EVs which will be banging on the door of the US and already making inroads elsewhere, he should be panicking. Those cars sound better than anything Tesla's been investing in, which would be completely on him.
All those cars need to charge somewhere, though. What a self-own.
> Entering the United States without being inspected and admitted, i.e., illegal entry, is a misdemeanor or can be a felony, depending on the circumstances
OpenAI said this work was done in conjunction with Microsoft’s long established threat intel center, these are almost certainly the code names Microsoft security intel teams have assigned to these actors. Threat actor naming is generally a mess and every company has a different naming scheme for the same cluster of indicators/ttps
I really don't understand this instinctive urge people have to grovel and simp for wealthy celebrities.
Musk is the owner and CEO of one of the most important defense contractors in the country. It is a matter of national strategic importance if he is spending his time coked out of his gourd or neck-deep in a k-hole.
Oddly i think he’s less important than you do, but you think I’m simping lol.
If you really think Musk’s drug habit is that important, People.com and NYPost Page Six may be closer to your preference.
There’s a couple of wars, shipping crisis, antisemitism, airplanes grounded, an upcoming election, employment and inflation numbers that are of more consequence than the private behaviour of Musk.
Have you read her recent Tweets on the matter? She was definitely editorializing quite subjectively in favor of Altman. That's not exactly unbiased journalism happening.
