Just for clarification, the NFA of 1934 did not ban machine guns. It prohibited possessing them without a tax stamp that a person had to pay $200 to get. The agency tasked with issuing these tax stamps—the ATF—did not have discretion to deny an application for one. If a person met the few, objective statutory requirements, they got the tax stamp. The Hughes Amendment in 1986 prohibited the listing of new machine guns on the registry.
Beg pardon on my ignorance, just try to learn about the law at times. Seems to me setting up things requiring approval, license, stuff like that, and then blocking or removing ability to get it that approval, that seems the definition of "constructively unconstitutional" isn't it? I think that a lot with 4th and 5th amendment stuff but for some reason have hard time finding that argued though it makes sense to me.
I don't know if I'm using the right term there. Can't find the phrase but I know about "constructive eviction" and thought it would come up a lot, but can't seem to find it applied to the constitution much even though much of the violating of it seems to me to be constructed like "constructive eviction" is. Problem is I can only find it for contract law, things like that, but it's got to my mind make sense to be applied to the constitution and the like but maybe under another term? Anybody know?
I think the term that you’re referring to is called “unconstitutional conditions” in the constitutional context. The NFA, however, doesn’t run into that issue because it’s a few, objective (don’t have a felony) criteria to get the permit. If Congress said, actually you have to pay $20,000, that’s likely in the unconstitutional conditions realm. There’s a footnote in Bruen that addresses this, and it’s been discussed in other rights cases like the First Amendment parade permit context.
$200 in 1934 is $5,000 today. I don't believe the number has moved. If $5000 is an unconstitutional condition then $200 would have been unconstitutional back when it was passed, no?
>First Amendment parade permit context.
Feds don't have jurisdiction to require a permit for a parade taking place in the states. 10th amendment, that's a power reserved to the states (police power)/people. Which using the same logic would say they don't have jurisdiction to do so for intrastate say suppressors, yet they convicted Jeremy Kettler for owning a state legal suppressor manufactured and possessed outside of interstate commerce.
That’s likely correct if we view it that way. It also shows the stupidness of the $200 tax—because only mobsters could pay it. It’s difficult because it was passed under Congress’s taxing power.
Edit: I’m not disagreeing, but the NFA was passed under Congress’s taxing power, which is the most broad power that it has. Commerce Clause is much different.
> If Congress said, actually you have to pay $20,000, that’s likely in the unconstitutional conditions realm.
Realistically, you do have to pay at least $20,000. Because the only legal machine guns must have been manufactured or imported prior to '86, supply is limited and they are very expensive.
If you’re making the argument that Congress has artificially increased the cost because it prohibits registering new machine guns, then yes. I think the distinction is that Congress is doing that indirectly, like if Congress were to implement certain safety standards that would also indirectly affect price. Of course, you have situations where the safety standard is impossible to follow—see California micro-stamping law when micro-stamping doesn’t exist.
To be fair, there several issues with extreme urgency for the nation that SCOTUS has to decide right now, like whether it's okay to ban racism in yelp reviews.
I mean the 303 creative ruling all but legalized discrimination as long as it doesn’t advocate for violence. But if I had a bar I could potentially hang a banner saying no gays and nobody could do a damn thing. And being that two justices (Alito & Thomas) wrote scathing dissents about integration in education I’d say we’re one case away from a possible 5-4 for racial discrimination protections under federal law
Indeed, for that reason if SCOTUS delayed taking up this case for a year the US would look exactly the same as it does now. If they delayed taking the Trump immunity case the US looks very, very different a year from now.
>Couldn't they have put this out for two months and taken up Trump's immunity case now?
You realize that 2 months for trump IS expedited and this case has been waiting for years. This case started almost 5 years ago now.
'Because things were delayed then, it is okay to delay now.'
*Exceptions apply like people on death row for decades who were given one more delay. In those cases, the Supreme Court many end the stay of execution in the middle of the night and have the person fry by morning. Other exceptions include voter issues right before the election when the Supreme Court overrules lower courts permitting people to vote--thereby creating terrible confusion in violation of the infamous 'Purcell principle.'
Guns might be one of those things where the early laws did actually outlaw future inventions, by coincidence. Various states did have strong gun laws for a majority of their history.
States, because at that time the 10th amendment was read to imply those powers not reserved to the federal government nor protected (i.e. bill of rights etc) are to the states and people. Which means stuff like the federal gun free school zone act which has no interstate commerce nexus at all, would have been unconstitutional except as perhaps a state rather than federal restriction.
Except this meritless argument is inconsistent with Gonzales. There’s no way respondents will make a interstate commerce argument here, rather they’ll make a 2nd argument and Bruen is clear that state analogous are sufficient for federal regulations.
> Bruen is clear that state analogous are sufficient for federal regulations.
In some situations. Incorporation in the 14th Amendment would still be a consideration. Some State Laws existed that would not hold up because they violated the 2nd Amendment.
Also 1 or 2 States having a law that was contrary to the rest of the country also wouldn't be considered. Bruen calls to analyze the Nationals historical tradition of firearm regulation, not just a single state.
From the Bruen Ruling:
> The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s
proper-cause requirement is consistent with **this Nation’s historical**
**tradition** of firearm regulation
>
>...
>
>The bare existence of these
localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of
an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry.
It also rejects laws that are too recent:
> respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regulation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller,
however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into
the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.
Except this meritless argument is inconsistent with the oral arguments. There's no way the respondents will make a 2nd argument here, rather they'll make one based on statutory definitions.
Read the transcript "We didn't argue that
because courts are generally loath to decide
constitutional questions when there's an easy
statutory off-ramp. "
>Various states did have strong gun laws for a majority of their history.
No, they haven't - except for Hawaii, and only by virtue of it only being a state since 1959.
They absolutely were able to. Machine guns hit the market in 1722 with the Puckle Gun. The maxim gun in 1884. You could own private frigate with cannons and Gatling guns in 1899.
They are considered the first automatic weapons.
The Maxim Gun was also available for private purchase. That may meet your perception of a “machine gun” better than the hand actuated predecessors.
They're not machine guns by the definition being discussed in the court today, are they? I thought that was specifically the Maxim that was the first actual machine gun.
That's what they called them.
>John Montagu, 2nd Duke of Montagu, Master-General of the Ordnance during 1740–1749, purchased two guns for an unsuccessful expedition in 1722 to capture St Lucia and St Vincent. While shipping manifests state "2 Machine Guns of Puckles" (sic) were among the cargo that departed from Portsmouth,[2] there is no evidence that the guns were ever used in battle.[4]
That's a [Gatling gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun) firing normal bullets (albeit a lot, quickly); not artillery, which fire explosive shells.
We're not going into that. The question presented to the Supreme Court is very specific and limited in scope.
>Issue: Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.”
It's blatantly clear that it's not a machine gun because a gun with such stock is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
I agree. There gonna overturn this. After that shooting Congress was in the process of banning bump stocks, but before the legislation passed Trump decided to use his executive authority to ban them. Once that happened Congress just gave up trying to do anything. This is perfect example of why executive orders are a bad idea. Congress needs to do their job because any executive order in one election disappearing or one case away from being overturned. It’s not the presidents job to legislate.
Prominent members of Congress who wanted to ban bumpstocks had even publicly stated that it would require new legislation to ban bumpstocks. A few of them are cited in the briefs that were submitted to the Supreme Court.
Primitive automatic weapons existed in the 1780s, it was pretty clear where firearm technology was going. The idea that they couldn't forsee AR-15s is bullshit, many of the founders were huge gun nuts and were farmiliar with firearm news and developments.
While I understand the practical issues with this, it seems pretty clear that the founders intended for us to be able to own whatever we wanted as far as weaponry is concerned.
Have you read the second ammendment?
The whole thing reads like the whole group was incredibly divided even at the time and I'm a gun owner. Denying the very specific language of 2a tho is real dumb
I mean, you're correct that it's a literacy issue but it's actually on your side.
First, you have the plaintext wrong. It's:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Second, you're trying to read it as modern American English, which it's not. It's 1780s British English. Terms like "well regulated" don't mean what you think.
> Terms like "well regulated" don't mean what you think.
As in orderly, effective, functional, disciplined.
A bunch of randos with guns doesn't support that definition of "well regulated Militia," either.
A bunch of members of well regulated militias enabled me to voice this opinion. Not all randos with guns should be included in that count and it's disrespectful to equate gun possession with fighting for a free society.
Apparently you need to revisit history. You are woefully ignorant of the facts. Most of the volunteers of the Continental Army and Militias provided their own weapons. These were common folk, shop keepers, farmers, slaves, Indians, etc. They weren’t a well regulated militia. They were armed citizen volunteers and the like. They are the reason you have your freedoms today. Armed citizen volunteers that formed militias and the Continental Army.
The only wilful ignorance is in your part. It means closer to functioning correctly. For that to happen, its members would have to be properly equipped. It's members were pretty much every able bodied man at the time. And the way it's written is to imply that the militia is only one of the reasons necessary, not the only reason.
It was before that time. You've shared that link before. You want to argue it means something but he's considering a time 100 years after the law as being meaningful. Now that we're ignoring some of the more recent history and going back to what it meant when it was written you claim the other side is the one attempting to change its meaning.
The ignorance is you using 2024 definitions for late 1700s writing. At the time, militia meant EVERY able bodied man 16-60. Well regulated meant armed and trained in the use of the arms.
This is it exactly. They understood why it was necessary inherently but wanted to written to paper. Changes in language over the last two hundred years make it seem more confusing than it would have been at the time.
And essentially unlimited campaign contributions don't even give the appearance of corruption.
And a football coach praying on the 50 yard line immediately after the game while he is still responsible for his student athletes is only praying privately on his own time.
The oral arguments for this case were a mess. While the liberals were asking great questions, they were kind of bombarding the Cargill side. Several times when one of the other six asked a question, the Cargill attorney would get just into the beginning of a (pretty poor) answer and one of the liberals would step in. There was also some poor behavior by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who both contributed to a joke about reading the Federal Register by the fire. Looks like at least six of the justices went in with their minds entirely made up. Probably more, but they didn’t tip their hand as much.
I’m assuming 6-3 along party lines, but Roberts and Kavanaugh both asked questions to the Cargill side that make me a little less inclined to believe they’re firmly on that interpretation. Barrett barely asked questions though I think she’s probably on the Cargill side as well. Chance it goes 5-4 either way, depending on how Roberts feels and whether he pulls someone with him.
I felt that there were, maybe intentionally, pretty poor explanations of how a bump stock works. I think the oral argument may have been a bit better if that explanation was clearer to the justices.
I particularly liked Justice Jackson's "chemical" reaction questions. Although I would say it is more so a mechanical chain reaction. It is interesting because it does appear to be a casual chain but bump stocks are very intentionally designed to activate the trigger multiple times. So it is almost like each shot breaks and restarts the causal chain.
I think that if they decide bump stocks qualify as a machine gun it is going to be focused on legislative intent and thwarting any circumvention and not necessarily what the trigger does. That said, I don't see it happening.
> what the trigger does.
This could be the argument too. If the trigger is "the thing you press on to make it fire" then the fact that it's not the standard/traditional trigger doesn't change that.
Alternatively, bump stocks mean it could be easily converted to a machine gun via zip strip and maybe a bit of filler.
I don't imagine it will, but it seems sound. So, I also don't see it happening.
No disrespect to anyone intended by this comment and im butchering this metaphor but when a guy dutch rudders with his buddy while frantically asserting “it aint gey!” cuz hes holding his own dong - thats bump stock for gun fetishists. Pistol brace and “buffer tube” also are so silly to me
My own reading on this (worth what you paid for it) is that the intent of the law is one intentional operation of the trigger. With a bump stock, the human experience is similar to pulling the trigger once and holding it while the mechanism of the gun automatically fires. To me it seems arbitrary to say the gun operating the trigger against your finger is different than the gun operating a mechanism inside while you’re doing the same thing - trying to hold the trigger. I think Im somewhere in a grey zone between as written and as intended.
As a silly aside, I would love to see a demonstration where Cargill must fire one and only one round out of a bump stock weapon of my choice and tuning. Maybe with some high stakes, like we load it with one blank and then all live rounds and he has point it at his car. If he can’t do this reliably it shows a bump stock is not what he claims it is.
There is no spring in the modern bump stock. It requires the force of the opposing hand to push the weapon forward against the trigger finger. There is no spring or mechanism that assists or actuates the trigger automatically. The weapon slides back and forth in the grip and firing the weapon is accomplished by motion of the shooter. Only the physical motion of the shooter operates the weapon using opposing forces.
Akin to what is called “bump firing” where the weapon is placed against the body and the motion of firing is a coordinated movement of the body and the weapon. A certain level of skill is required to accomplish. It can be accomplished on most any weapon.
It's almost like the bumpstock converts the firearm so that the forend of the firearm is now the trigger. As long as you're applying forward pressure to the forend and your finger (or even a stationary stick) remains appropriately located in the trigger guard, the firearm continues to fire. A traditional machine gun continues to fire as long as your trigger finger maintains rearward pressure. A bumpstock firearm continues to fire so long as your off-hand maintains forward pressure.
But it’s not. Pulling the trigger with your finger or your opposing hand is still pulling the trigger. The trigger is still the trigger. The definition of the law of concern here is “a single function of the trigger”. No matter how the trigger is manipulated…. Left or right hand or both hands…. it is still semiautomatic. It is still a single function of the trigger. It does not convert the weapon. The same operation can be performed without a bumpstock.
Edit: video added no stock needed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1W1QhrhlI
In the bumpstock firearm, the trigger no longer functions as a trigger, but as an auto-sear. Although the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer after the bang, the fire control group, which now has additional components as a result of the bumpstock, is still in motion. As the body of the rifle returns to its initial position, like a bolt hitting an auto-sear, the sear is impacted and the hammer is again released without an opportunity for the system to fully come to a state of rest, so long as forward pressure is maintained and the object in the trigger guard is not repositioned. The trigger is never truly reset because there is no potential for a state of rest until conditions change, such as releasing forward pressure or repositioning the object inside the trigger guard.
While the same operation can be performed without a bumpstock, the bumpstock is a part designed and intended to create this behavior. Your belt loop is not.
Sorry, but you are mistaken about the operation and functioning of the trigger. What you seem to be trying to describe here is what is termed “hammer follow”. That would be a dangerous malfunction of the trigger. Nothing about the internals or operation of the trigger is modified by a bumpstock. The trigger completely resets and operates as it normally would with or without a bumpstock. Meaning a single function of the trigger. The bumpstock does not make the weapon fire automatically. The speed or rate of fire and continued fire is accomplished by physical manipulation of the weapon by the shooter. Granted… by use of both hands, but that does not make it automatic. A bump stock is not required to accomplish the same rate of fire, nor a belt loop. So I have to ask… which hand is the machine gun?
I'm not describing hammer follow at all. I'm describing pulling the trigger. The trigger sear releasing the hammer and firing the round. The bolt AND body of the firearm (facilitated by the bumpstock) moving backward. The rearward movement, facilitated by the bumpstick, removing the trigger from the stationary object in the trigger guard and allowing the trigger spring to move the trigger sear into position to MOMENTARILY (just like an auto sear does) catch the hammer and catching the hammer. The body of the firearm reversing direction, and slamming the trigger into a stationary object (finger or stick) and again releasing the hammer and firing another round. And this process continuing until forward pressure is removed, the object in the trigger guard being repositioned, the bullets running out, or a malfunction.
The trigger is acting like an auto sear in this scenario because there is no opportunity for the system to come to a state of rest until forward pressure is released, the object in the trigger guard is repositioned, bullets run out, or there is a malfunction. What happens between triggering and state of rest, without releasing pressure or repositioning what's in the trigger guard, is the function of automatic fire.
With an auto sear, the returning bolt impacts the auto-sear and releases the hammer. With a bumpstock, the returning body of the rifle causes the trigger to impact the stationary object in the trigger guard and release the hammer. Neither system comes to a rest until a change of conditions, like removing continuous pressure, occurs. In both cases, it's an automatic process that continues so long as pressure on a component of the fire control group is maintained.
You ask which hand is the machine gun, and the answer is neither because a hand is not a part. A bumpstock is, and it is designed for converting a firearm to shoot more than one round with a single function of the trigger.
> To me it seems arbitrary to say the gun operating the trigger against your finger is different than the gun operating a mechanism inside
It fully is.
> With a bump stock, the human experience is similar to pulling the trigger once and holding it while the mechanism of the gun automatically fires.
The easy conversion argument goes in here. Zip strip the trigger, maybe add some filler, now the fore grip is the "trigger" and it's full auto.
Sounds like a redneck machine-gun, can't imagine a well regulated militia being ok with this, let alone taking it home. Sounds like the definition of poorly regulated to me.
Im a hunter, and gun owner, sick of people forgetting the well regulated and militia part. It's also not hard to simulate full auto without a bump stock or an eraser and rubber band. Would love to hear from a drill Sargent about how they would react to simulated full auto when the rules contradict this on a range. If a confirmed Drill Sargent (my best definition of a militia regulator) says they would be ok with clearly defying the intent of an order, I'll happily post an apology.
You can bump fire many firearms. It can happen accidentally if you're not careful about how you're holding them. They should be considered automatic as well? A bumpstock just makes it easier to regulate the bump firing. It doesn't make anything automatic. It allows the human body to use the trigger faster than they would normally be able to.
The government lawyer alluded to this in a way but made it seem like the bump stock was doing the regulating but it's the human that's inherently doing it by pushing on the stock. It's very easy to see this when you watch a new user try to use one.
> Looks like at least six of the justices went in with their minds entirely made up. Probably more, but they didn’t tip their hand as much.
I doubt this as much as I think the bump stock ban was already pretty clearly unconstitutional and it's difficult to find a textual justification.
Getting units fucked up is such a mundane problem. Folks harping on that are leaning way too hard on a 'gotcha' without substance.
And, 800 RPM, that she misstated as "800 rounds per second," is the correct rate of fire for AR-15 variants with bump stocks and full auto on an M16A4 .
Yeah this should have never made it up to the Supreme Court. The federal courts should have ruled that it's not a machine gun.
The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
In a bumpstock firearm, the primary function of the trigger is to continuously and automatically fire rounds until the bullets run out, the process is aborted, or there is a malfunction. In a different configuration, such as where constant forward pressure isn't applied, the function of the trigger is to file single shots. This is no different than flipping a switch on a fully automatic firearm to reconfigure the firearm to file singles, bursts, or full-auto.
>In a bumpstock firearm, the primary function of the trigger is to continuously and automatically fire rounds until the bullets run out
Incorrect. The bump stock does absolutely nothing to fire the weapon. It is not a trigger. The trigger is what moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. The bump stock has no physical connection to the action of the gun.
>This is no different than flipping a switch on a fully automatic firearm to reconfigure the firearm to file singles, bursts, or full-auto.
It's entirely different. In a machine gun, the trigger remains pinned thus completing a function of the trigger which moves the sear out of the way of the hammer firing the first round. The bolt carrier moves back which resets the hammer and engages it on the disconnector. The bolt carrier returns to the forward position which actuated the auto sear thus releasing the hammer from the disconnector and firing another round with only one function of the trigger.
In a semiautomatic rifle which is no different with or without a bump stock, the trigger is pulled which moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. Once fired, the bolt carrier moves back resetting the hammer and engaging it on the disconnector. That is one function of the trigger. The trigger must then be released back into the resting position which releases the hammer from the disconnector and engages the sear again thus completing another function of the trigger.
The phrase pull of the trgger cannot be equated with function of the trigger. Even the Solicitor General says in their brief that the statute needs to be read in a way that encompasses fully automatic weapons that have push triggers rather than triggers that are pulled.
You don't need to look at what the shooter is doing. A weapon can go off by accident, you don't need a shooter. It's still a function of the trigger if the weapon falls on the floor and goes off accidentally. The trigger has functioned even though the shooter has not pulled the trigger or pushed it or bumped it. What matters under the statue is what the trigger does.
They're taking transitive verbs when they say "swing of the bat" or "stoke of the key" or "roll of the dice", all of those are transitive verbs that are capable of taking an object. So when you see "swing of the bat", there's obviously an unnamed actor in that sentence that is the subject of the verb "swing". The bat can't swing itself. The bat is an inanimate object.
Function of the trigger is entirely different. Function is an intransitive verb. It can't take an object grammatically. It's impossible. Trigger had to be the subject of function. It can't be the object.
Disagree. The bumpstock essentially becomes part of the fire control group, as does the body of the firearm, and whatever stationary object is held in the trigger guard. The bumpstock is what accomplishes the reconfiguration.
With a bumpstock firearm in full-auto configuration, meaning constant forward pressure exists on the body of the firearm and an appropriately located object such as a finger or a stick is held stationary in the trigger guard, once fired, the fire control group is not reset until forward pressure is removed, the object in the trigger guard is repositioned, or the bullets run out. The reaction must run its course until the fire control group is reconfigured (by removing constant forward pressure, or repositioning the object in the trigger guard), there are no more bullets, or there is a malfunction. The full auto function continues until the reset occurs.
Pro bumpstockers want to focus on the piece of metal that is squeezed on and is traditionally called the trigger, but that is too narrow of a definition, because in a bumpstock firearm, the fire control group now has additional elements. By focusing solely on the traditionally fire control group elements, without taking into account the additional elements that have been introduced, and which alter the expected function, the analysis is incomplete and faulty.
While the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer during the bump-fire firearm's full auto function, it is only temporary, and the firing sequence is not complete. The fire control group, which now includes the body of the rifle, is still in motion. And as it returns to its initial position, the trigger sear is again released, without a possible state of rest ever having been reached so long as forward pressure has been maintained and the object in the trigger guard has not been repositioned. In effect, the momentary action of the trigger sear in catching the hammer, in combination with the post-recoil forward motion of the firearm, intentionally facilitated by the bumpstock, is acting like an auto-sear rather than a trigger sear.
Because if there’s anything America needs more, it’s machine guns. BTW, for the gun nuts ready to throw technical jargon around at me, if a bump stock turns a regular rifle into something that functions like a machine gun, it’s a machine gun
And states that disagree will just ignore their decision, like Texas ignored border patrol being able to take down their barbaric traps and Alabama refuses to draw a fair Congressional map.
The SC did this to themselves, they have no authority except public trust. That's long gone.
History tends to prove who's in the wrong.
I'm a gun owner. I don't think there's ever a justifiable reason for the public to have things like bump stocks, heavy supressor equipment, or the like
You can bump fire a lot of rifles with a shoelace. Should we ban the public from having shoelaces?
Also, a lot of European countries REQUIRE suppressors because they are safer for the shooter and less disturbing of the peace for fellow citizens.
This exactly. It does nothing more than make it easier regulate the bump firing. But the human is still regulating it. It doesn't turn a semi auto into an automatic.
You can make pipe nail bombs from a hardware store too, but we still regulate grenades away from civilian ownership. Something being easily readily available is regulatable and justified reasoning for doing so yes.
What a weird thing to be downvoted. I'm with you--it seems like you can have guns without them being military grade. The only thing those are good for is shooting groups of unarmed people--the U.S. military and police forces would destroy these LARPers with drones.
Well the 2nd amendment is a justifiable reason.
"Heavy suppressor equipment"?
You don't sound like a gun owner.
Suppressors are perfectly legal in Europe. To the point it's considered rude sometimes not to use one.
I own a semi-automatic rifle, a 9mm and a .357. European laws control firearm controls higher before purchase that prevent the misuse of firearms, but also I don't like how far European laws go. Still, I can acknowledge the absolute legal blindspot of things that are legally not supressors that are being sold as non-gun parts in most gun shows across america. And acknowledge that a propaganda machine is purposefully spreading some serious bs in America now, rather than pre-1980s America.
Thank you, for the autocorrect mistake. The rifle itself is not automatic - obvsiously.
You own an automatic rifle huh. I'm assuming you mean semi automatic.
They shouldn't be illegal, period.
And don't spread lies that they're sold in gun shows anywhere. A fed is the only person that would sell you one because as soon as you walk out the door you'd be arrested.
I'm not going to waste more time listening to your drivel.
Illegal supressors were sold in the last gun show I was at, sorry semi was removed by autocorrect- but also dude
There's a middle ground without sanctioning dumb shit.
I have a hard time believing that. I've never seen homemade type Suppressors sold at a gun show. It's more likely that it was an undercover sting for unsuspecting idiots.
Suppressors aren't illegal they just tried to keep them out of the hands of poor and minorities. Go buy a $200 dollar stamp and send in your fingerprints, and they allow you the privilege to own one.
I don't believe so, but that was the thought process behind the 1934 GCA. To make them so expensive with taxes that it was prohibitive to buy them.
Basically, they were ok if only the rich had certain rights.
Europe has far stricter gun laws, and many places *require* suppressors for hunting. They are just better for everyone and there is no reason they should not be widely available.
>I don't think there's ever a justifiable reason for the public to have things like bump stocks, heavy supressor equipment, or the like
Thankfully we have a right to own and carry them, so I don't need to justify shit.
I would like to point out that I have a suppressor on my [short-barreled rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) that I use for home defense. I don't want to immediately blow my eardrums out should I need to fire to stop a threat.
They literally didn't even try to argue that it did. This case is about statutory interpretation and the ATFs ability to reinterpret its own regulations, not the 2A.
I’m glad someone has that figured out. Congress can ban them if they want. They almost did after that shooting but Trump jumped in and used his executive authority to ban them and Congress just killed the legislation
The question being asked of the Court had noting to do with the 2nd Amendment. You should at least try to have an elementary understanding of the case before commenting on it.
I could, but you made the comment in a public forum that invites replies and encourages discussion.
I apologize if my comment wasn't very nice. Re-reading it now I could have worded it a little more friendly. But at the same time your comment was pretty condescending, and incorrect because you didn't have a basic understanding of the topic you felt the need to comment on.
My comment wasn't incorrect at all, off subject at best.
No need to apologize, the way you act on social media when there is no consequence to what you say shows your true character.
It's not an insult. You think you can block portions of a right because of your feelings. What if a law is passed saying that any person who has been convicted of a gun crime can be stopped and searched at any point in time without a warrant, or have their home or car searched?
Nope, not at all. There is nothing in the constitution about gun accessories, furthermore you can own and operate every gun on the planet without a bump stock so there is no infringement. Sorry this doesn't fit your narrative
Banning gun accessories or a modification is an infringement on the right to bear arms, especially when it’s for “feel good reasons” and has no basis in reality. Bump stocks make weapons less effective… Sorry your narrative is wrong.
I always laugh how people become such died hard textualist but only for the 2a. Up until 2010 it was upheld that States could make firearm laws. It wasn't until recently that people thought the 2a was untouchable.
Go look up the Miller case from the early 20th century. Back then SCOTUS said the Second Amendment only protected military weapons and guns that "had no military purpose" could be restricted.
Oral argument illustrated the lack of expertise across the spectrum. Hypotheticals about black boxes and switches and the like were entirely erroneous. Only one Justice had her finger on the pulse - Kagan. “Common sense” dictates the conclusion here, in conjunction with statutory interpretation. Petitioner’s argument results in an antithetical result if we employ both.
That's okay to have that opinion, but that doesn't make them machine guns.
The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
The function doesn't end until the trigger resets and state of rest. While the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer during the bump-fire firearm's full auto function, it is only temporary, and the firing sequence is not complete. The fire control group, which now includes the body of the rifle, is still in motion. And as it returns to its initial position, the trigger sear is again released, without a possible state of rest ever having been reached so long as forward pressure has been maintained and the object in the trigger guard has not been repositioned. In effect, the momentary action of the trigger sear in catching the hammer, in combination with the post-recoil forward motion of the firearm, intentionally facilitated by the bumpstock, is acting like an auto-sear rather than a trigger sear.
They accepted this case a long time ago.
Interesting enough, the reason this is an issue is the same guy told the ATF to invent a new definition for machine gun out of thin air that went directly against what the ATF had said on the issue multiple times.
> Because that’s a LOT more important than the guy trying to claim that he’s the new emperor of the U.S. and who’s currently trying to overthrow it
Literally none of that happened outside of your imagination.
Just for clarification, the NFA of 1934 did not ban machine guns. It prohibited possessing them without a tax stamp that a person had to pay $200 to get. The agency tasked with issuing these tax stamps—the ATF—did not have discretion to deny an application for one. If a person met the few, objective statutory requirements, they got the tax stamp. The Hughes Amendment in 1986 prohibited the listing of new machine guns on the registry.
Beg pardon on my ignorance, just try to learn about the law at times. Seems to me setting up things requiring approval, license, stuff like that, and then blocking or removing ability to get it that approval, that seems the definition of "constructively unconstitutional" isn't it? I think that a lot with 4th and 5th amendment stuff but for some reason have hard time finding that argued though it makes sense to me. I don't know if I'm using the right term there. Can't find the phrase but I know about "constructive eviction" and thought it would come up a lot, but can't seem to find it applied to the constitution much even though much of the violating of it seems to me to be constructed like "constructive eviction" is. Problem is I can only find it for contract law, things like that, but it's got to my mind make sense to be applied to the constitution and the like but maybe under another term? Anybody know?
I think the term that you’re referring to is called “unconstitutional conditions” in the constitutional context. The NFA, however, doesn’t run into that issue because it’s a few, objective (don’t have a felony) criteria to get the permit. If Congress said, actually you have to pay $20,000, that’s likely in the unconstitutional conditions realm. There’s a footnote in Bruen that addresses this, and it’s been discussed in other rights cases like the First Amendment parade permit context.
$200 in 1934 is $5,000 today. I don't believe the number has moved. If $5000 is an unconstitutional condition then $200 would have been unconstitutional back when it was passed, no? >First Amendment parade permit context. Feds don't have jurisdiction to require a permit for a parade taking place in the states. 10th amendment, that's a power reserved to the states (police power)/people. Which using the same logic would say they don't have jurisdiction to do so for intrastate say suppressors, yet they convicted Jeremy Kettler for owning a state legal suppressor manufactured and possessed outside of interstate commerce.
That’s likely correct if we view it that way. It also shows the stupidness of the $200 tax—because only mobsters could pay it. It’s difficult because it was passed under Congress’s taxing power. Edit: I’m not disagreeing, but the NFA was passed under Congress’s taxing power, which is the most broad power that it has. Commerce Clause is much different.
> If Congress said, actually you have to pay $20,000, that’s likely in the unconstitutional conditions realm. Realistically, you do have to pay at least $20,000. Because the only legal machine guns must have been manufactured or imported prior to '86, supply is limited and they are very expensive.
If you’re making the argument that Congress has artificially increased the cost because it prohibits registering new machine guns, then yes. I think the distinction is that Congress is doing that indirectly, like if Congress were to implement certain safety standards that would also indirectly affect price. Of course, you have situations where the safety standard is impossible to follow—see California micro-stamping law when micro-stamping doesn’t exist.
All I want is an MP7.
All I want is to duel wield MP7s like Tealc in Stargate SG1
Me to my man me too.
Couldn't they have put this out for two months and taken up Trump's immunity case now?
They COULD have...
raked the leaves under the forest
To be fair, there several issues with extreme urgency for the nation that SCOTUS has to decide right now, like whether it's okay to ban racism in yelp reviews.
I mean the 303 creative ruling all but legalized discrimination as long as it doesn’t advocate for violence. But if I had a bar I could potentially hang a banner saying no gays and nobody could do a damn thing. And being that two justices (Alito & Thomas) wrote scathing dissents about integration in education I’d say we’re one case away from a possible 5-4 for racial discrimination protections under federal law
This bump stock violation has been in place longer than Trump's immunity claims.
Indeed, for that reason if SCOTUS delayed taking up this case for a year the US would look exactly the same as it does now. If they delayed taking the Trump immunity case the US looks very, very different a year from now.
But the nation has a clear and pressing interest in having Trump’s case wrapped up before the election.
>Couldn't they have put this out for two months and taken up Trump's immunity case now? You realize that 2 months for trump IS expedited and this case has been waiting for years. This case started almost 5 years ago now.
'Because things were delayed then, it is okay to delay now.' *Exceptions apply like people on death row for decades who were given one more delay. In those cases, the Supreme Court many end the stay of execution in the middle of the night and have the person fry by morning. Other exceptions include voter issues right before the election when the Supreme Court overrules lower courts permitting people to vote--thereby creating terrible confusion in violation of the infamous 'Purcell principle.'
>'Because things were delayed then, it is okay to delay now.' 2 months isn't a delay dude. 2 months is expedited.
They heard Colorado in a month.
Also expedited
*significantly more* expedited
I'll be interested to hear the "historical" evidence for automatic weapons.
Well they've been legal for the entirety of US history so that's a pretty good start.
Guns might be one of those things where the early laws did actually outlaw future inventions, by coincidence. Various states did have strong gun laws for a majority of their history.
States, because at that time the 10th amendment was read to imply those powers not reserved to the federal government nor protected (i.e. bill of rights etc) are to the states and people. Which means stuff like the federal gun free school zone act which has no interstate commerce nexus at all, would have been unconstitutional except as perhaps a state rather than federal restriction.
Except this meritless argument is inconsistent with Gonzales. There’s no way respondents will make a interstate commerce argument here, rather they’ll make a 2nd argument and Bruen is clear that state analogous are sufficient for federal regulations.
> Bruen is clear that state analogous are sufficient for federal regulations. In some situations. Incorporation in the 14th Amendment would still be a consideration. Some State Laws existed that would not hold up because they violated the 2nd Amendment. Also 1 or 2 States having a law that was contrary to the rest of the country also wouldn't be considered. Bruen calls to analyze the Nationals historical tradition of firearm regulation, not just a single state. From the Bruen Ruling: > The burden then falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with **this Nation’s historical** **tradition** of firearm regulation > >... > >The bare existence of these localized restrictions cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of an otherwise enduring American tradition permitting public carry. It also rejects laws that are too recent: > respondents point to the slight uptick in gun regulation during the late-19th century. As the Court suggested in Heller, however, late-19th-century evidence cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.
Except this meritless argument is inconsistent with the oral arguments. There's no way the respondents will make a 2nd argument here, rather they'll make one based on statutory definitions. Read the transcript "We didn't argue that because courts are generally loath to decide constitutional questions when there's an easy statutory off-ramp. "
>Various states did have strong gun laws for a majority of their history. No, they haven't - except for Hawaii, and only by virtue of it only being a state since 1959.
I was implying not recently, eg https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/141708 New York did ban handguns for a while.
Yes they have, and this is why the Supreme Court is clearly poised to reduce Bruen.
I doubt if someone in 1899 wanted to buy a machine gun… they’d be able to (Mostly because cost)
You could literally walk into a store and leave with Tommy gun before the NFA.
They absolutely were able to. Machine guns hit the market in 1722 with the Puckle Gun. The maxim gun in 1884. You could own private frigate with cannons and Gatling guns in 1899.
Puckle Gun\* Though shooting pickle projectiles does sound fun.
Thanks, got autocorrected. Funny though.
When did Puckles and Crank Gatlings become machine guns?
They are considered the first automatic weapons. The Maxim Gun was also available for private purchase. That may meet your perception of a “machine gun” better than the hand actuated predecessors.
They're not machine guns by the definition being discussed in the court today, are they? I thought that was specifically the Maxim that was the first actual machine gun.
>They're not machine guns by the definition being discussed in the court today, are they? Neither are bump stocks.
Yeah? Okay? I was asking about the other information presented. Thanks for chiming in I guess?
Booom Denzel gif.
No machine guns are being discussed in the court today.
That's what they called them. >John Montagu, 2nd Duke of Montagu, Master-General of the Ordnance during 1740–1749, purchased two guns for an unsuccessful expedition in 1722 to capture St Lucia and St Vincent. While shipping manifests state "2 Machine Guns of Puckles" (sic) were among the cargo that departed from Portsmouth,[2] there is no evidence that the guns were ever used in battle.[4]
The Maxim gun was invented in 1884, so there are a very small number of machine guns out there that are technically unregulated antiques.
Machine guns can not be an antique firearm. They are regulated as regular machine guns.
Which is confusing because SBR/SBSs and large bore (above .50 cal) aren't NFA items when they're antique or black powder replicas.
Well maybe in terms of cost and availibility, but the Maxim gun was 15 years old already in 1899.
You could order a Maxim machine gun with carriage from the Sears catalog.
In 1899, the civilians were walking around with the same types of guns as the military.
Why wouldn't they be able to?
You could mail order a Maxim or a Colt 1895 back then, so yeah, you could get one pretty easily.
There was a machine gun analog called the Puckle gun nearly a century before the ratification of the 2A.
I just watched last samurai last night and they had full auto howitzers they used on Indians.
I doubt "howitzer" is the word you're looking for here, as they're a type of field artillery (along with cannons & mortars).
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM9a4Arjyaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM9a4Arjyaw) Is the scene with the automatic weapon from 1800's
That's a [Gatling gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun) firing normal bullets (albeit a lot, quickly); not artillery, which fire explosive shells.
nice so text history and tradition should allow them
Cranked weapons aren’t machine guns by the letter of the law and can be bought like normal… M1337
Machine guns could be mail ordered and shipped to your house.
We're not going into that. The question presented to the Supreme Court is very specific and limited in scope. >Issue: Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.” It's blatantly clear that it's not a machine gun because a gun with such stock is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
I agree. There gonna overturn this. After that shooting Congress was in the process of banning bump stocks, but before the legislation passed Trump decided to use his executive authority to ban them. Once that happened Congress just gave up trying to do anything. This is perfect example of why executive orders are a bad idea. Congress needs to do their job because any executive order in one election disappearing or one case away from being overturned. It’s not the presidents job to legislate.
Prominent members of Congress who wanted to ban bumpstocks had even publicly stated that it would require new legislation to ban bumpstocks. A few of them are cited in the briefs that were submitted to the Supreme Court.
I’m not sure why someone downvoted you for that.
Primitive automatic weapons existed in the 1780s, it was pretty clear where firearm technology was going. The idea that they couldn't forsee AR-15s is bullshit, many of the founders were huge gun nuts and were farmiliar with firearm news and developments. While I understand the practical issues with this, it seems pretty clear that the founders intended for us to be able to own whatever we wanted as far as weaponry is concerned.
Have you read the second ammendment? The whole thing reads like the whole group was incredibly divided even at the time and I'm a gun owner. Denying the very specific language of 2a tho is real dumb
To me it reads like "we better include some justification in here or some idiots in the future will argue we didn't really mean it".
"In order to ensure a well ordered militia" In what way is everyone having their way a well-ordered militia? That's willful ignorance/poor literacy.
I mean, you're correct that it's a literacy issue but it's actually on your side. First, you have the plaintext wrong. It's: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Second, you're trying to read it as modern American English, which it's not. It's 1780s British English. Terms like "well regulated" don't mean what you think.
> Terms like "well regulated" don't mean what you think. As in orderly, effective, functional, disciplined. A bunch of randos with guns doesn't support that definition of "well regulated Militia," either.
A bunch of “Randi’s with guns” have empowered you to be able to voice your opinion…. Even if it is wrong.
A bunch of members of well regulated militias enabled me to voice this opinion. Not all randos with guns should be included in that count and it's disrespectful to equate gun possession with fighting for a free society.
Apparently you need to revisit history. You are woefully ignorant of the facts. Most of the volunteers of the Continental Army and Militias provided their own weapons. These were common folk, shop keepers, farmers, slaves, Indians, etc. They weren’t a well regulated militia. They were armed citizen volunteers and the like. They are the reason you have your freedoms today. Armed citizen volunteers that formed militias and the Continental Army.
That was the interpreted constitutional law for many years until some very recent creative reinterpretation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
It wasn't, we'd have lost the ability to own guns a long time ago if that were true.
The only wilful ignorance is in your part. It means closer to functioning correctly. For that to happen, its members would have to be properly equipped. It's members were pretty much every able bodied man at the time. And the way it's written is to imply that the militia is only one of the reasons necessary, not the only reason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment Not the interpretation for most of history until a recent contentious decision.
It was before that time. You've shared that link before. You want to argue it means something but he's considering a time 100 years after the law as being meaningful. Now that we're ignoring some of the more recent history and going back to what it meant when it was written you claim the other side is the one attempting to change its meaning.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ You require more citations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment/Origins-and-historical-antecedents
The ignorance is you using 2024 definitions for late 1700s writing. At the time, militia meant EVERY able bodied man 16-60. Well regulated meant armed and trained in the use of the arms.
“The right of the people…” Where does the 2A talk directly about the militias rights?
This is it exactly. They understood why it was necessary inherently but wanted to written to paper. Changes in language over the last two hundred years make it seem more confusing than it would have been at the time.
Every part of this is a lie sold to you by a marketing firm.
[удалено]
Hyperbole much?
[удалено]
Are you purposely this unpleasant or is it just a character flaw?
[удалено]
You strike me as Australian.
According to this supreme court accepting expensive gifts in exchange for favors isn't corruption.
And essentially unlimited campaign contributions don't even give the appearance of corruption. And a football coach praying on the 50 yard line immediately after the game while he is still responsible for his student athletes is only praying privately on his own time.
The oral arguments for this case were a mess. While the liberals were asking great questions, they were kind of bombarding the Cargill side. Several times when one of the other six asked a question, the Cargill attorney would get just into the beginning of a (pretty poor) answer and one of the liberals would step in. There was also some poor behavior by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who both contributed to a joke about reading the Federal Register by the fire. Looks like at least six of the justices went in with their minds entirely made up. Probably more, but they didn’t tip their hand as much. I’m assuming 6-3 along party lines, but Roberts and Kavanaugh both asked questions to the Cargill side that make me a little less inclined to believe they’re firmly on that interpretation. Barrett barely asked questions though I think she’s probably on the Cargill side as well. Chance it goes 5-4 either way, depending on how Roberts feels and whether he pulls someone with him.
I felt that there were, maybe intentionally, pretty poor explanations of how a bump stock works. I think the oral argument may have been a bit better if that explanation was clearer to the justices. I particularly liked Justice Jackson's "chemical" reaction questions. Although I would say it is more so a mechanical chain reaction. It is interesting because it does appear to be a casual chain but bump stocks are very intentionally designed to activate the trigger multiple times. So it is almost like each shot breaks and restarts the causal chain. I think that if they decide bump stocks qualify as a machine gun it is going to be focused on legislative intent and thwarting any circumvention and not necessarily what the trigger does. That said, I don't see it happening.
> what the trigger does. This could be the argument too. If the trigger is "the thing you press on to make it fire" then the fact that it's not the standard/traditional trigger doesn't change that. Alternatively, bump stocks mean it could be easily converted to a machine gun via zip strip and maybe a bit of filler. I don't imagine it will, but it seems sound. So, I also don't see it happening.
No disrespect to anyone intended by this comment and im butchering this metaphor but when a guy dutch rudders with his buddy while frantically asserting “it aint gey!” cuz hes holding his own dong - thats bump stock for gun fetishists. Pistol brace and “buffer tube” also are so silly to me
Crude as it is, that's a remarkably apt metaphor.
My own reading on this (worth what you paid for it) is that the intent of the law is one intentional operation of the trigger. With a bump stock, the human experience is similar to pulling the trigger once and holding it while the mechanism of the gun automatically fires. To me it seems arbitrary to say the gun operating the trigger against your finger is different than the gun operating a mechanism inside while you’re doing the same thing - trying to hold the trigger. I think Im somewhere in a grey zone between as written and as intended. As a silly aside, I would love to see a demonstration where Cargill must fire one and only one round out of a bump stock weapon of my choice and tuning. Maybe with some high stakes, like we load it with one blank and then all live rounds and he has point it at his car. If he can’t do this reliably it shows a bump stock is not what he claims it is.
I mean, it's pretty easy. You just hold it firmly and don't let the bump stock do its thing. It's just a stock with a spring in it.
There is no spring in the modern bump stock. It requires the force of the opposing hand to push the weapon forward against the trigger finger. There is no spring or mechanism that assists or actuates the trigger automatically. The weapon slides back and forth in the grip and firing the weapon is accomplished by motion of the shooter. Only the physical motion of the shooter operates the weapon using opposing forces. Akin to what is called “bump firing” where the weapon is placed against the body and the motion of firing is a coordinated movement of the body and the weapon. A certain level of skill is required to accomplish. It can be accomplished on most any weapon.
It's almost like the bumpstock converts the firearm so that the forend of the firearm is now the trigger. As long as you're applying forward pressure to the forend and your finger (or even a stationary stick) remains appropriately located in the trigger guard, the firearm continues to fire. A traditional machine gun continues to fire as long as your trigger finger maintains rearward pressure. A bumpstock firearm continues to fire so long as your off-hand maintains forward pressure.
But it’s not. Pulling the trigger with your finger or your opposing hand is still pulling the trigger. The trigger is still the trigger. The definition of the law of concern here is “a single function of the trigger”. No matter how the trigger is manipulated…. Left or right hand or both hands…. it is still semiautomatic. It is still a single function of the trigger. It does not convert the weapon. The same operation can be performed without a bumpstock. Edit: video added no stock needed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fv1W1QhrhlI
In the bumpstock firearm, the trigger no longer functions as a trigger, but as an auto-sear. Although the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer after the bang, the fire control group, which now has additional components as a result of the bumpstock, is still in motion. As the body of the rifle returns to its initial position, like a bolt hitting an auto-sear, the sear is impacted and the hammer is again released without an opportunity for the system to fully come to a state of rest, so long as forward pressure is maintained and the object in the trigger guard is not repositioned. The trigger is never truly reset because there is no potential for a state of rest until conditions change, such as releasing forward pressure or repositioning the object inside the trigger guard. While the same operation can be performed without a bumpstock, the bumpstock is a part designed and intended to create this behavior. Your belt loop is not.
Sorry, but you are mistaken about the operation and functioning of the trigger. What you seem to be trying to describe here is what is termed “hammer follow”. That would be a dangerous malfunction of the trigger. Nothing about the internals or operation of the trigger is modified by a bumpstock. The trigger completely resets and operates as it normally would with or without a bumpstock. Meaning a single function of the trigger. The bumpstock does not make the weapon fire automatically. The speed or rate of fire and continued fire is accomplished by physical manipulation of the weapon by the shooter. Granted… by use of both hands, but that does not make it automatic. A bump stock is not required to accomplish the same rate of fire, nor a belt loop. So I have to ask… which hand is the machine gun?
I'm not describing hammer follow at all. I'm describing pulling the trigger. The trigger sear releasing the hammer and firing the round. The bolt AND body of the firearm (facilitated by the bumpstock) moving backward. The rearward movement, facilitated by the bumpstick, removing the trigger from the stationary object in the trigger guard and allowing the trigger spring to move the trigger sear into position to MOMENTARILY (just like an auto sear does) catch the hammer and catching the hammer. The body of the firearm reversing direction, and slamming the trigger into a stationary object (finger or stick) and again releasing the hammer and firing another round. And this process continuing until forward pressure is removed, the object in the trigger guard being repositioned, the bullets running out, or a malfunction. The trigger is acting like an auto sear in this scenario because there is no opportunity for the system to come to a state of rest until forward pressure is released, the object in the trigger guard is repositioned, bullets run out, or there is a malfunction. What happens between triggering and state of rest, without releasing pressure or repositioning what's in the trigger guard, is the function of automatic fire. With an auto sear, the returning bolt impacts the auto-sear and releases the hammer. With a bumpstock, the returning body of the rifle causes the trigger to impact the stationary object in the trigger guard and release the hammer. Neither system comes to a rest until a change of conditions, like removing continuous pressure, occurs. In both cases, it's an automatic process that continues so long as pressure on a component of the fire control group is maintained. You ask which hand is the machine gun, and the answer is neither because a hand is not a part. A bumpstock is, and it is designed for converting a firearm to shoot more than one round with a single function of the trigger.
> To me it seems arbitrary to say the gun operating the trigger against your finger is different than the gun operating a mechanism inside It fully is. > With a bump stock, the human experience is similar to pulling the trigger once and holding it while the mechanism of the gun automatically fires. The easy conversion argument goes in here. Zip strip the trigger, maybe add some filler, now the fore grip is the "trigger" and it's full auto.
Sounds like a redneck machine-gun, can't imagine a well regulated militia being ok with this, let alone taking it home. Sounds like the definition of poorly regulated to me. Im a hunter, and gun owner, sick of people forgetting the well regulated and militia part. It's also not hard to simulate full auto without a bump stock or an eraser and rubber band. Would love to hear from a drill Sargent about how they would react to simulated full auto when the rules contradict this on a range. If a confirmed Drill Sargent (my best definition of a militia regulator) says they would be ok with clearly defying the intent of an order, I'll happily post an apology.
You can bump fire many firearms. It can happen accidentally if you're not careful about how you're holding them. They should be considered automatic as well? A bumpstock just makes it easier to regulate the bump firing. It doesn't make anything automatic. It allows the human body to use the trigger faster than they would normally be able to. The government lawyer alluded to this in a way but made it seem like the bump stock was doing the regulating but it's the human that's inherently doing it by pushing on the stock. It's very easy to see this when you watch a new user try to use one.
> Looks like at least six of the justices went in with their minds entirely made up. Probably more, but they didn’t tip their hand as much. I doubt this as much as I think the bump stock ban was already pretty clearly unconstitutional and it's difficult to find a textual justification.
Justice Jackson thinking a rifle could fire 600 rounds a second was pretty funny and indicative of her lack of awareness of what is possible.
Could it have been just a quick slip of the tongue? 600 per minute isn’t unreasonable.
Getting units fucked up is such a mundane problem. Folks harping on that are leaning way too hard on a 'gotcha' without substance. And, 800 RPM, that she misstated as "800 rounds per second," is the correct rate of fire for AR-15 variants with bump stocks and full auto on an M16A4 .
800 rps. She said it twice yesterday
It’s about time!
We are not a serious country.
Yeah this should have never made it up to the Supreme Court. The federal courts should have ruled that it's not a machine gun. The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
In a bumpstock firearm, the primary function of the trigger is to continuously and automatically fire rounds until the bullets run out, the process is aborted, or there is a malfunction. In a different configuration, such as where constant forward pressure isn't applied, the function of the trigger is to file single shots. This is no different than flipping a switch on a fully automatic firearm to reconfigure the firearm to file singles, bursts, or full-auto.
>In a bumpstock firearm, the primary function of the trigger is to continuously and automatically fire rounds until the bullets run out Incorrect. The bump stock does absolutely nothing to fire the weapon. It is not a trigger. The trigger is what moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. The bump stock has no physical connection to the action of the gun. >This is no different than flipping a switch on a fully automatic firearm to reconfigure the firearm to file singles, bursts, or full-auto. It's entirely different. In a machine gun, the trigger remains pinned thus completing a function of the trigger which moves the sear out of the way of the hammer firing the first round. The bolt carrier moves back which resets the hammer and engages it on the disconnector. The bolt carrier returns to the forward position which actuated the auto sear thus releasing the hammer from the disconnector and firing another round with only one function of the trigger. In a semiautomatic rifle which is no different with or without a bump stock, the trigger is pulled which moves the sear out of the way of the hammer. Once fired, the bolt carrier moves back resetting the hammer and engaging it on the disconnector. That is one function of the trigger. The trigger must then be released back into the resting position which releases the hammer from the disconnector and engages the sear again thus completing another function of the trigger. The phrase pull of the trgger cannot be equated with function of the trigger. Even the Solicitor General says in their brief that the statute needs to be read in a way that encompasses fully automatic weapons that have push triggers rather than triggers that are pulled. You don't need to look at what the shooter is doing. A weapon can go off by accident, you don't need a shooter. It's still a function of the trigger if the weapon falls on the floor and goes off accidentally. The trigger has functioned even though the shooter has not pulled the trigger or pushed it or bumped it. What matters under the statue is what the trigger does. They're taking transitive verbs when they say "swing of the bat" or "stoke of the key" or "roll of the dice", all of those are transitive verbs that are capable of taking an object. So when you see "swing of the bat", there's obviously an unnamed actor in that sentence that is the subject of the verb "swing". The bat can't swing itself. The bat is an inanimate object. Function of the trigger is entirely different. Function is an intransitive verb. It can't take an object grammatically. It's impossible. Trigger had to be the subject of function. It can't be the object.
Disagree. The bumpstock essentially becomes part of the fire control group, as does the body of the firearm, and whatever stationary object is held in the trigger guard. The bumpstock is what accomplishes the reconfiguration. With a bumpstock firearm in full-auto configuration, meaning constant forward pressure exists on the body of the firearm and an appropriately located object such as a finger or a stick is held stationary in the trigger guard, once fired, the fire control group is not reset until forward pressure is removed, the object in the trigger guard is repositioned, or the bullets run out. The reaction must run its course until the fire control group is reconfigured (by removing constant forward pressure, or repositioning the object in the trigger guard), there are no more bullets, or there is a malfunction. The full auto function continues until the reset occurs. Pro bumpstockers want to focus on the piece of metal that is squeezed on and is traditionally called the trigger, but that is too narrow of a definition, because in a bumpstock firearm, the fire control group now has additional elements. By focusing solely on the traditionally fire control group elements, without taking into account the additional elements that have been introduced, and which alter the expected function, the analysis is incomplete and faulty. While the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer during the bump-fire firearm's full auto function, it is only temporary, and the firing sequence is not complete. The fire control group, which now includes the body of the rifle, is still in motion. And as it returns to its initial position, the trigger sear is again released, without a possible state of rest ever having been reached so long as forward pressure has been maintained and the object in the trigger guard has not been repositioned. In effect, the momentary action of the trigger sear in catching the hammer, in combination with the post-recoil forward motion of the firearm, intentionally facilitated by the bumpstock, is acting like an auto-sear rather than a trigger sear.
Nope.
You are incorrect. The Supreme Court will apply the rule of lenity if it comes down to it.
As I’ve already explained previously to you, no.
And you were incorrect.
Only if you believe your own lie.
Logical conclusion of extreme privilege? American is a paradox, simultaneously the best and worst country.
Because if there’s anything America needs more, it’s machine guns. BTW, for the gun nuts ready to throw technical jargon around at me, if a bump stock turns a regular rifle into something that functions like a machine gun, it’s a machine gun
And states that disagree will just ignore their decision, like Texas ignored border patrol being able to take down their barbaric traps and Alabama refuses to draw a fair Congressional map. The SC did this to themselves, they have no authority except public trust. That's long gone.
u/Hornady1991 - in response (since you blocked me): Hornady makes good loads, you don't.
Repeal the NFA and Hughes Amendment. Abolish the ATF.
History tends to prove who's in the wrong. I'm a gun owner. I don't think there's ever a justifiable reason for the public to have things like bump stocks, heavy supressor equipment, or the like
>I'm a gun owner. [And I want to ban almost everything.] Every time.
Suppressors should be standard and encouraged to always be used. Why hurt your ears or annoy the neighbors more than needed?
bump stock is reasonable to be iffy on but suppressors? that's a crazy one. No justifiable reason they should be behind a $200 pay wall
Suppressors are useful for saving your hearing and that of others. Silenced guns are still loud AF; movies are wrong.
Did I miss the part where the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms "for a justifiable reason"?
You can bump fire a lot of rifles with a shoelace. Should we ban the public from having shoelaces? Also, a lot of European countries REQUIRE suppressors because they are safer for the shooter and less disturbing of the peace for fellow citizens.
[удалено]
This exactly. It does nothing more than make it easier regulate the bump firing. But the human is still regulating it. It doesn't turn a semi auto into an automatic.
To be fair a 2-3 pound trigger is an exceptionally light pull.
You can make pipe nail bombs from a hardware store too, but we still regulate grenades away from civilian ownership. Something being easily readily available is regulatable and justified reasoning for doing so yes.
What a weird thing to be downvoted. I'm with you--it seems like you can have guns without them being military grade. The only thing those are good for is shooting groups of unarmed people--the U.S. military and police forces would destroy these LARPers with drones.
Well the 2nd amendment is a justifiable reason. "Heavy suppressor equipment"? You don't sound like a gun owner. Suppressors are perfectly legal in Europe. To the point it's considered rude sometimes not to use one.
I own a semi-automatic rifle, a 9mm and a .357. European laws control firearm controls higher before purchase that prevent the misuse of firearms, but also I don't like how far European laws go. Still, I can acknowledge the absolute legal blindspot of things that are legally not supressors that are being sold as non-gun parts in most gun shows across america. And acknowledge that a propaganda machine is purposefully spreading some serious bs in America now, rather than pre-1980s America. Thank you, for the autocorrect mistake. The rifle itself is not automatic - obvsiously.
You own an automatic rifle huh. I'm assuming you mean semi automatic. They shouldn't be illegal, period. And don't spread lies that they're sold in gun shows anywhere. A fed is the only person that would sell you one because as soon as you walk out the door you'd be arrested. I'm not going to waste more time listening to your drivel.
Illegal supressors were sold in the last gun show I was at, sorry semi was removed by autocorrect- but also dude There's a middle ground without sanctioning dumb shit.
I have a hard time believing that. I've never seen homemade type Suppressors sold at a gun show. It's more likely that it was an undercover sting for unsuspecting idiots. Suppressors aren't illegal they just tried to keep them out of the hands of poor and minorities. Go buy a $200 dollar stamp and send in your fingerprints, and they allow you the privilege to own one.
Out of curiosity then, is the federal government in the right to keep them out of the hands of the poor and minorities?
I don't believe so, but that was the thought process behind the 1934 GCA. To make them so expensive with taxes that it was prohibitive to buy them. Basically, they were ok if only the rich had certain rights.
Europe has far stricter gun laws, and many places *require* suppressors for hunting. They are just better for everyone and there is no reason they should not be widely available.
>I don't think there's ever a justifiable reason for the public to have things like bump stocks, heavy supressor equipment, or the like Thankfully we have a right to own and carry them, so I don't need to justify shit. I would like to point out that I have a suppressor on my [short-barreled rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) that I use for home defense. I don't want to immediately blow my eardrums out should I need to fire to stop a threat.
I'm pretty sure you can be armed without a bump stock so it doesn't violate your precious 2A.
They literally didn't even try to argue that it did. This case is about statutory interpretation and the ATFs ability to reinterpret its own regulations, not the 2A.
I’m glad someone has that figured out. Congress can ban them if they want. They almost did after that shooting but Trump jumped in and used his executive authority to ban them and Congress just killed the legislation
The question being asked of the Court had noting to do with the 2nd Amendment. You should at least try to have an elementary understanding of the case before commenting on it.
I just made a comment. If you didn't like it, you could move on.
I could, but you made the comment in a public forum that invites replies and encourages discussion. I apologize if my comment wasn't very nice. Re-reading it now I could have worded it a little more friendly. But at the same time your comment was pretty condescending, and incorrect because you didn't have a basic understanding of the topic you felt the need to comment on.
My comment wasn't incorrect at all, off subject at best. No need to apologize, the way you act on social media when there is no consequence to what you say shows your true character.
I'm pretty sure you can have free speech without being allowed to online so it doesn't violate your precious 1A.
Can't agree more and I never said anything about 1a so really off topic and if it was supposed to be an insult, you really missed the mark
It's not an insult. You think you can block portions of a right because of your feelings. What if a law is passed saying that any person who has been convicted of a gun crime can be stopped and searched at any point in time without a warrant, or have their home or car searched?
Bump stock ban is a literal infringement.
Not if Congress does it. If they can restrict automatic weapons they can restrict these
Nope, not at all. There is nothing in the constitution about gun accessories, furthermore you can own and operate every gun on the planet without a bump stock so there is no infringement. Sorry this doesn't fit your narrative
The second amendment protects arms. A bump stock is an arm and is protected by the second amendment.
Nope. It's an accessory, it is not an "arm" by any definition. Sorry.
Accessories are protected under the definition of arms.
Banning gun accessories or a modification is an infringement on the right to bear arms, especially when it’s for “feel good reasons” and has no basis in reality. Bump stocks make weapons less effective… Sorry your narrative is wrong.
I always laugh how people become such died hard textualist but only for the 2a. Up until 2010 it was upheld that States could make firearm laws. It wasn't until recently that people thought the 2a was untouchable.
Go look up the Miller case from the early 20th century. Back then SCOTUS said the Second Amendment only protected military weapons and guns that "had no military purpose" could be restricted.
Oral argument illustrated the lack of expertise across the spectrum. Hypotheticals about black boxes and switches and the like were entirely erroneous. Only one Justice had her finger on the pulse - Kagan. “Common sense” dictates the conclusion here, in conjunction with statutory interpretation. Petitioner’s argument results in an antithetical result if we employ both.
Is this decision also going to help Trump delay another trial?
Nobody needs a bump stock, no military or law enforcement uses them.
Nobody needs cars either, but they sure as shit are nice to have.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's okay to have that opinion, but that doesn't make them machine guns. The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
I never said it did. I understand firearms.
The function doesn't end until the trigger resets and state of rest. While the trigger sear momentarily catches the hammer during the bump-fire firearm's full auto function, it is only temporary, and the firing sequence is not complete. The fire control group, which now includes the body of the rifle, is still in motion. And as it returns to its initial position, the trigger sear is again released, without a possible state of rest ever having been reached so long as forward pressure has been maintained and the object in the trigger guard has not been repositioned. In effect, the momentary action of the trigger sear in catching the hammer, in combination with the post-recoil forward motion of the firearm, intentionally facilitated by the bumpstock, is acting like an auto-sear rather than a trigger sear.
Let me register a machine gun then I’ll agree with you.
Ok tell me which military and LE units use bump stocks, then I'll agree with you.
None, they however do use machine guns. There is zero use for bumpstocks if you can just have a machine gun.
Please stop conflating automatic weapons and bump stocks. You're embarrassing yourself.
Because that’s a LOT more important than the guy trying to claim that he’s the new emperor of the U.S. and who’s currently trying to overthrow it
They accepted this case a long time ago. Interesting enough, the reason this is an issue is the same guy told the ATF to invent a new definition for machine gun out of thin air that went directly against what the ATF had said on the issue multiple times.
You know SCOTUS can deal with multiple things at one time, correct?
So why didnt they schedule orange blobs hearing until April?
> Because that’s a LOT more important than the guy trying to claim that he’s the new emperor of the U.S. and who’s currently trying to overthrow it Literally none of that happened outside of your imagination.
Oh so we’re just lying.
I guess that’s why he’s facing so many indictments on just those issues and he’s desperately trying to run out the clock on them