gloog

The context of the quoted section of the article is about what an acceptable false positive rate would be, not about what situations drunk driving would be acceptable.

Scam bot operators will just use stolen credit cards - or even easier, iTunes gift cards that they get from the victims of their scams - to pay to “prove” that they aren’t bot accounts. For the fake followers/interaction bot “services” it increases the cost of operating, but I doubt they spin up a bunch of new accounts for every client - that $1 per account can probably be spread out pretty thin. I don’t see this solving the bot problem any more than prioritizing paid account replies did (it didn’t work at all for that).

Technically it’s only the fifth circuit that’s decided that DV restraining orders don’t prohibit gun ownership so far, and the case is part of the current term for SCOTUS. My guess would be that SCOTUS will overrule the 5th circuit while still leaving the “historical analog” test from last year that was the basis of that decision in place, but that’s just an assumption on my part.

Also a layperson, but while the courts may have ruled against certain details of background check requirements (like whether certain kinds of restraining orders can be used to disqualify someone from buying or possessing guns) they have not ruled against background checks being required for gun sales as a concept. The entire purpose of these kits, whether the manufacturer says so or not, is to bypass background check laws by selling something that technically doesn’t meet the definition of a firearm but can very easily be modified to become one.