https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/bump-stocks-ban-supreme-court-thomas-gorsuch.html
Apparently, a "Second Amendment extremist" is somebody who does not agree with Bloomberg, and who actually believes the preposterous idea that "the People" have the "right to keep and bear arms."
If 519,999 Americans own bump stocks, and have not and do not use them to commit any crimes, then they must be using them for lawful purposes, right? News flash: "fun" is a lawful purpose.
The plaintiffs plan to appeal that decision, but with Friday’s ruling, the Supreme Court declined to keep the ban on hold as they do so—a likely indication that a majority of the court does not believe the rule is unlawful. There are two possible reasons why Thomas and Gorsuch may have dissented. First, there is a chance the two justices believe the rule violates the Second Amendment; [highlight=yellow]both are gun rights extremists[/highlight], and Thomas has written that any “types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose” may not be constitutionally outlawed.
Before the new rule, Americans owned about 520,000 bump stocks, which were legal in most of the country. [highlight=yellow]Perhaps these justices believe that bump stocks are “commonly used for lawful purposes”[/highlight] and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
Apparently, a "Second Amendment extremist" is somebody who does not agree with Bloomberg, and who actually believes the preposterous idea that "the People" have the "right to keep and bear arms."
If 519,999 Americans own bump stocks, and have not and do not use them to commit any crimes, then they must be using them for lawful purposes, right? News flash: "fun" is a lawful purpose.