The TLDR version is that the old leadership was corrupted and misappropriating funds for personal uses. There were several lawsuits and the old leadership has been mostly ousted. The new leadership are trying to reform the organization to prevent abuse of the prior administration from returning.
They are still around at a reduced role. Other groups have popped up like GOA (Gun owners of America) and FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition).
Nothing says new Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence like states regulation dairy.
Non-violent protests capable of dissuading hostile official intervention through MAD. Peaceable ≠ peaceful.
About 40% of the time they are unanimous. And it has been that way since at least when FDR appointed 8/9, probably longer. But people care about controversy more than consensus in their news.
That is just dog bites man vs man bites dog.
I'm glad to help, headlines and sadly even the body of news articles rarely capture nuance. Law and Politics both have their controversies but they are not synonyms. When you peek behind the curtains of headlines, things start to make more sense, because, most everyone thinks that they're being rational. But most of us are simply viewing the matters from different perspectives. There are bad perspectives, but, unfortunately, there is not a best one.
The 5 judges were from the lower court's dissent. It wasn't 5 justices at the Supreme Court. It takes 4 Supreme Court justices to grant cert on a case and hear it. It sounds like only Gorsuch and Thomas voted to hear it.
Gorsuch is arguably the most pro-Native American justice the court has ever seen. He started his majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma with this sentence "On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise."
Thomas and Gorsuch joined Alito in a 77 page dissent, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia explicitly calling to overturn a prior case that infringed on Native American's religious liberties by denying benefits to a peyote user.
This happens all the time. The party out of the majority proposes moon-shot legislation knowing that it won't pass. Because they get to go home and complain about the bad (insert party name here)s who blocked the, probably unconstitutional, bill that they proposed. Then beg for donations so they can get a seat on an important committee.
Seconded, this is the best explanation here. The browning action, on which most semi automatic pistol operate on, does not function well when a suppressor is added w/ out a Nielson device or 'booster'.
The design is made assuming the barrel weighs ____ oz, if suddenly it weighs more then the reliability is impaired.
Well it was Madison if you want to know who held the quill, but upon the consent and order of the Confederation Congress which our current Congress acts in the continuity of. See Art. XI Clause I (proclaiming the debts of the Confederation's Congress maybe held just as valid under the Constitution's Congress).
Your question is vague and it would be hard to give you an apt response, if you rephrase it with more clarity I'll get back to you.
I was not talking about case law. I was talking about text. But if you want my thoughts on prior precedents let me know which ones.
Who do you think called for and commissioned the Constitutional Convention? Who do you think proposes amendments under Article V? Pick up a book.
Please note state lines were disputed as depicted. Notably NH had older claims to the VT territory claimed by NY. And this list isn't all inclusive, there were many small fights.
Have you seen Canadian house prices?