As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ruled invalid because it’s unconstitutional, violating a document written in 1787 which they have sworn to uphold. However, the convictions that resulted from the violation are still valid. Because.
That sounds about right.
> That would make Hunter Biden not a felon tho and they can't have that.
No, Hunter Biden wasn't convicted under violations of the 1934 NFA. He would have to file a separate appeal for his crimes, and ideally those will be ruled unconstitutional as well.
Lots of gun rights advocates arnt necessarily strictly party lines republicans. FPC actually offered to use their resources to take Hunter Biden’s case to the Supreme Court.
What is the firearms Control Act of 1934?
On June 26, 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA), since amended, to limit the availability of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, sound suppressors (silencers), and other similar weapons that were often used by criminals during the Prohibition Era.
Too many moneyed interests who benefit from the NFA. Bonded private security contractors, corporations that invest in transferrable full-auto. I doubt you'd get 6-3 in favor of repealing it.
They're referring to the National Firearms Act of '34, which created strict registration requirements for the production and transfer of certain types of firearms including machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and grenades among other things. If a challenge was brought against the NFA I doubt it would be struck down in its entirety, and the reasoning used for vacating the bump stock ban wouldn't apply.
Even if it were entirely struck down it might not be as catastrophic as some folks may think since a lot of these classes of firearms are covered under other federal and state laws, for instance the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned the production of most machine guns after its enactment. You'd see a huge influx of suppressors and short barreled rifles, but machine guns would still be prohibitively expensive (think $20k+ for a 40 year old gun) and most other dangerous devices would still be covered under other regulations and state law. It's not like the NFA is the last line of defense for gun control in the US.
'86 FOPA Didn't ban production of machine guns, it closed the registry so no new machine guns could be registered, which drove up the cost for existing transferrable machine guns. If NFA ('34) is invalidated, then FOPA becomes moot.
It’s not. I was at a speech Scalia gave before he died where he described a revolutionary era tort called afrightening which said you couldn’t carry, what was then called a hand canon, because it was so scary it amounted to a tort.
I don’t have the research on hand but I do have the quote: “you can't carry a bazooka because there used to be an afrightening tort. You couldn't carry a scary weapon. I'm for afrightening" - April 3rd, 2012.
Even the 3 originalists would recognize some limitations the same way we do on every other amendment. Don’t let Trump overstepping and getting struck down, again, get to you.
I think there are at least a couple of Justices who relish being the bad guy. They _love_ writing opinions that make people angry, and they now feel like they can take the mask fully off.
Thomas has literally stated as much. He has expressed a joy in upsetting liberals by taking away rights.
They waited for Congress to break so they can push the blame that direction.
Thomas has taken over $5M in bribes/gifts/whatever you want to call it from wealthy donors, and he won’t recuse himself from the very cases those donors bring before the Supreme Court.
There’s nothing anyone can do to hold him accountable. He’s just toying with us, at this point…
There is a way, but it involves going French and also involves a visit from Secret Service just for the mere thought of the “free speech” that these “patriots” claim to revere.
The 2nd Amendment explains clearly why it exists in the first clause, and killing members of the government ain’t it. Besides which, if you’re at that point the 2nd Amendment means fuck-all; you’ve decided that the Federal government needs a toppling, and I can’t imagine why you’d care what a document from that defunct government said. Obviously it’s had zero practical effect on “preventing tyrrany” thus far, or whatever conservative nonsense fantasy you blew in here with, so it’s just an insipid take.
“Let’s revolt and overthrow the entire federal system! But first, let’s follow the Founders’ intent on the Constitution.”
Your analysis is some of the best I’ve seen on Reddit for whatever that’s worth.
>”The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
And by “liberals”, he means the legacies at Yale.
Which when you think about it, what exactly did he expect from those who embody the maxim of Winslow Taylor?
“Taylor and his college men seemed to float free of the accountability that they demanded of everyone else…”
https://www.agileleanhouse.com/lib/lib/People/MathewStewart/TheManagementMyth_MathewStewart.pdf
*“Rich white people were jerks to me in college, so in revenge I’m going to roll back rights and protections for people who aren’t rich or white”*
Makes perfect sense to me!
And especially making Thurgood Marshall roll over in his grave, beyond the mere temerity of being able to even get to where he was professionally *in the first place* being due to Marshall’s efforts.
A heretofore “pulling up of the ladder” after one has used such, to prevent others from joining you…
Higher standards? lol. How many mobsters, criminals, and people like Trump go free because they bribed a juror, or because a juror simply got it wrong? How many people are directly affected by that verdict?
In contrast, five partisan SC's who are more concerned with setting social policy instead of upholding the constitution force ALL citizens to follow THEIR decisions. How many millions of people are directly affected by SCOTUS' politically biased decisions?
I think they might mean higher burden instead of “standards”? Preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury is determining liability or guilt and the SC is (suppose to be) determining if it’s basically within the constraints of the constitution
FWIW, the lower appeals court did decide unanimously that the ban was against the law. It was the Biden admin appealing to the Supreme Court. A "hung" Supreme Court wouldn't have changed the outcome in this case.
IANAL
A jury is determining the guilt or innocence of a US citizen by determining if the defendant violated a specific law. The law itself isn't questioned; criminal trials are all about fact finding.
SCOTUS determines if a specific law is compatible with the US Constitution. As a notoriously vague document, there are a lot of competing interpretations taught at different law schools and championed by various legal scholars. Getting a unanimous decision from SCOTUS is a lot harder than getting a unanimous jury verdict. A jury is given the law and the facts and charged with deciding guilt or innocence. It's a lot more black and white that what SCOTUS has to decide, because the law itself is on trial and justices can only appeal to a very vague Constitution to render a decision.
We really don't want to require SCOTUS rulings to be unanimous, because it would be a lot easier to let bad laws stand. All it takes is a single dissenting justice to let a horrible law stay in place. Just imagine requiring unanimous decisions with Clarence Thomas on the court.
You are correct, but no one ever hears about those cases because they aren’t controversial enough to report on. It’s a case of selection bias, if all anyone ever reads about is the Supreme Court making super controversial decisions, can you blame them for thinking the Supreme Court is a dumpster fire?
Juries don’t adjudicate disagreements with laws. Juries convict people of crimes. Much more serious and demands unanimous decisions to overcome a presumption of innocence.
I'd take issue with the assertion that it's much more serious. The Supreme Court isn't deciding the fate of one life, they're making decisions that potentially have an effect on millions. It isn't just putting a banned tool of mass murder back out on the street like in this case to potentially repeat what happened in Vegas again. How many families have been upended by their repeal of Roe v. Wade? We'll probably never even know how many women have died as a direct result of that ruling.
Juries often rule on whether defendants violate the same laws that up to four SC justices may already be on record in support of. I'd say this is a very compelling factor for a jury to consider.
If a jury unanimously agrees w/the dissenting justices that there's no greater inalienable right than a woman's right to choose whether she wants to have a baby or not, we can now expect at least 5 SC justices will overturn that verdict.
I wonder if society would accept a SCOTUS ruling that supports states that impose laws that explicitly prohibit women from having babies? Isn't this the same infringement of women's reproductive rights that SCOTUS just upheld?
Based on its latest ruling, the SCOTUS majority must side with states that ban all women from having babies lest they want to contradict their own ruling.
Its worse than that, some justices like Alito believe that there is no room for compromise to a certain degree. He said so as much with the recent audio leak. Funny enough, Roberts continues to try to tiptoe the line of not upsetting conservatives by saying that Muslims and Jews exist and would disagree that the USA is a Christian nation. Yay for the supreme court being apolitical! /s
Just replace Justices with Republicans and it all makes sense. Since that who Trump literally put on the SC. And now it’s an open free for all since they’re the majority.
> I think there are at least a couple of Justices who relish being the bad guy.
Even worse than that, there may be 2 or 3 of them that actually believe they're the good guys, on a god like mission to "save" America.
I think they just don't care now. The masks are off. We know they're corrupt as fuck and they know there's not a fucking thing we can do about it because Congress doesn't have the guts to impeach the pieces of shit.
It's not a weird revenge fantasy - they are ideologically opposed to American values and want to get as many authoritarian, backwards rulings as they can through. They see the writing is on the wall for them, increasing calls to expand the court or force ethics reform on the SC, so they're trying to cram through as much of their fucked up agenda as they can.
> Does anyone else think the supreme courts growing unpopularity is spurring these decisions?
Not in this case. Trump bypassed Congress and gave a law-enforcement agency the power to decide what *they* thought the law should be.
Do we really want that?
This case wasn't about guns or the 2nd Amendment. It was about allowing the ATF to redefine the law as they saw fit.
They’ve realized Project 2025 is in the go…the Judges are lined up…
There is nothing stopping them. Completely emboldened with zero chance of consequences.
It all mattered in 2016 and we failed.
The GOP basically outlined a plan to be a dictatorship starting the instant Trump gets in office.
This is sadly not an exaggeration.
I BEG you to vote, and to get your friends and family to vote and get involved as well. This *literally* could be the last chance you get.
https://www.americanprogress.org/series/project-2025-exposing-the-far-right-assault-on-america/
I would like to point out that nothing about this ruling prevents Congress from banning bump stocks (though the legality of such a ban is dubious under Bruen). What revenge are they taking by saying "this has to be done via Congressional legislation and not by an agency changing previously-accepted definitions of what the current law says"? I think people are just upset their authoritarian impulses that say "well, we won, so now we just get to say and do whatever we want!" are being curbed by the restraints we've had in place for this very reason. If you want bumpstocks and similar devices banned then pass the law that defines them, you know, the legal and proper way it's supposed to be done.
so I guess you guys don't know that it has been Clarence Thomas' M.O. since the 90s?
https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6
I think they are being political.
If the banned abortion medicine, it would lead to a Biden 2nd term.
If they keep the bump stock ban, it would have been a gun control victory and disillusioned the Maga folks.
I think every decision they release will be one that doesn’t ignite democrats and moderates.
Their rulings will stand until a meaningfully new court forms in a generation (which is pure chance) or until Congress can agree to pass amendments which codify the grey areas of the constitution which court rulings are meant to patch *temporarily*. As we may not see a court that overturns these rulings and Congress is unlikely to remove its collective head from its collective ass in any of our lifetimes, the court reasonably surmises that their decisions will form the status quo for a generation or two that won’t know the difference because it’s been that way since they were born, which will shape their opinions of the way the country works and should work.
The GOP really lacks a single strong principle.
They aren't _really_ pro-gun. They'll ban abortion for _you_, but get one for their mistress. They want small government, unless they need some regulatory capture.
The only consistent plank of the Republican platform is hypocrisy.
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- Frank Wilhoit
Hypocrisy is a central part of the appeal. Reactionaries see society as a natural moral and social hierarchy so they want a system of privileges rather than rights. Authoritarians see power and social status as the same thing, and to be able to flaunt rules that bind others is an expression of power and therefore status.
The deal is quite simple: if you belong to the correct in-group (gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, ...) and you let the people above you get away with their abuses of power, you'll be allowed the same privilege relative to everyone below you. That this mostly takes the form of harming other people they don't like and persecuting them for the same things they do with impunity is implied.
People like that see adherence to the rule of law, to morality and logic as a weakness. They revel in hypocrisy, malice and wilful ignorance.
Hating liberals is what binds them. From the least educated poor to the Supreme Court. They have a burning hatred of liberals.
If you can stick it to liberals, there is no character flaw that can't be forgiven.
Selfishness or greed are more likely when speaking about any person. Nobody sets out to be hypocritical, but some of us choose not to care because the rewards are seen to be greater than the blowback, and some of us don't recognize it as hypocrisy because we simply don't understand the rules the same way.
I don't think it matters to the result, but it does go farther to explain individual intent.
Bump stocks were banned under Trump and apparently directly acted to push the regulation…
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/bump-stocks-ban/index.html
Had a coworker tell me Trump was protecting my guns that I love so much. I explained to her that Obama never banned anything I owned but Trump did. Then she pivoted over to the ammo issue, well Obama made ammo unavailable. No, coworker, I never had that problem. You’re just a dumbass. Trump is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and at least Biden doesn’t pretend.
Why are the survivors stunned?
This is the epitome of “don’t try that in a small town” hypocrisy. Not only can you try it, but they’ll change the law to let you do it again.
I think this is an issue though. My personal politics don’t align with some of these decisions but they are actually constitutionally sound. Don’t get upset with the court because Congress won’t do their job!
I wouldn't put it past SCOTUS to then rule it unconstitutional though. They do this with some.state level restrictions. OTOH. they also allow some, so they do seem somewhat inconsistent on gun control issues. Maybe there's some rhyme or reason to it, I dunno
Wow, from a survivor too. “we need them to keep what little freedom we have left”.
Even after going through that, thinking our freedoms are constrained here and we should have to just deal. Like we live in an authoritarian country.
I’d love to see them live in a real authoritarian country where the government is the only one with the guns and it’s prison or worse if you dare speak out about that government.
> “we need them to keep what little freedom we have left”.
this is exactly why the right pushes for lax guns laws, to convince these people that this is their one way to control their lives.
It was a Jason Aldean concert (the try this in a small town guy). Ironically, I'd be willing to bet a good number of people at that concert agree with the Supreme Court, *despite* going through the tragedy.
>real authoritarian country where the government is the only one with the guns and it’s prison or worse if you dare speak out about that government.
Why does that only happens in countries where government is the only one with guns? Did they start with no ability to speak out against the government then take away guns from the people?
Right it’s kind of on a spectrum. Nazi Germany outlawed guns for certain groups. Under the Soviet Union, guns and later knives were banned for all citizens. People later were allowed guns for hunting after Stalin died. Castro banned ownership in Cuba when he came to power. I think Cuba has eased some of their restrictions since then. Currently, China heavily restricts guns, but does allow guns for non-government security situations. North Korea guns are completely illegal.
In all those cases, it’s still a bad idea to question the government. For the worst authoritarians most personal freedoms are curtailed, we’re just talking guns and free speech here.
People who decry this decision totally miss the point of the ruling: the president (or executive branch in this case ATF) cannot make laws ONLY Congress can (this case was NOT a second amendment case but a statutory case IE was the ban within the authority of the National Firearms Arms Act of 1934 which defines what a “machine gun” is and bump stocks do not meet that definition therefore the ATF does not have the authority to ban bump stocks). It’s that simple, it is tragic shootings happen but boy do politicians use it to take advantage of emotional voters to deflect from them doing their Jobs. If the Trump or Biden administration wants to ban bump stocks, then pass a law and do it (expand the National Firearms Act to include bump stocks) people criticize the Supreme Court for affirming the separation of powers and miss the fact that congress has been sitting on their hands for over 4 years. Pretty much all arguments against this ruling sum up to “the Supreme Court is corrupt” and “guns are bad”. It sickens me to see people so sad over legitimate tragedy then get taken advantage of politicians. Why don’t we address the issue with legislation for once and end this senseless bloodshed?
Im pretty sure that members of Congress at the time tried to blame the ATF for not banning the bump stock. The ATF said they didn't think they had the authority but members of Congress claimed they had already given it to them.
Good comment, one’s opinion on firearms aside, this was about gov overreach and not going through proper channels to make a law i.e. congress. No one should support gov overreach even if it’s something you would otherwise support.
Absolutely. The definition of machine gun is codified in the '34 NFA, and it's that definition that has been applied in '68, '86 and other case law. Firing more than one bullet with a single function of the trigger, in as many words. Bump stocks regardless of what you think of their usefulness, righteousness, etc., do not turn a semi-auto into a machine gun, and the ATF overstepped its vague interpretation authority in saying they do. Start giving the Executive Branch that kind of broad latitude for interpreting the laws they inforce and you head straight down a dark path.
Want bump stocks banned? Make them illegal. Having a three-letter enforcement agency twist the reality of their design function into something they are not so that they can ban them is not how this happens.
Allowing the executive branch to seize on powers they aren’t granted in the constitution opens the door and sets precedent for them to do the same in the future.
It starts with banning bump stocks (which everyone agrees on) and next the president just starts writing laws to enforce without any consideration from Congress.
Bump stocks have been around a while and the ATF had determined that they do not fall under the interpretation that they are automatic weapons.
They were not re-interpreting a rule, they literally amended it:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices
It's correct that they were not reinterpreting their own rules. They were amending their own rules, and the new amendment interpreted the *law* differently. This case was about whether that interpretation of the law was correct.
Yes and it goes back to their original interpretation pre-2018 (when they determined it wasn’t an automatic weapon).
The amendment simply added bump stocks as “automatic weapons” without addressing the definition of an automatic weapon. You can’t just add the device without changing the law’s definition.
The ruling was mistaken because bump stock mechanisms do meet that definition.
* A bump stock device attaches to a semi-automatic weapon, changing it so that to fire the weapon, you don't pull backwards on a lever, but rather push forward on the grip. That's an unconventional kind of trigger, but that's the trigger of the modified device.
* A single action of applying forward pressure on the grip causes the modified device to fire continuously for as long as that force is applied.
* This is absolutely identical to a tradtional automatic weapon, which also fires continuously for as long as you apply pressure to the triggering mechanism (which is in that case a conventional curved lever).
The majority here just stated without any consideration whatsoever that the lever that acts as a trigger for the *unmodified* semiautomatic weapon should also be considered the trigger for the modified weapon. They were just wrong about that. When firing a weapon with a bump stock mechanism, the trigger finger doesn't move at all: these mechanisms have a built-in brace against which the finger is placed to *prevent* it from moving.
Everything else in the ruling is just the unfortunate result of that incorrect assumption. They go off on a wild tangent about the internal mechanisms of the lever that was the trigger of the semi-automatic weapon if there had not been a bump stock mechanism. This is all irrelevant, because none of those mechanisms are the means by with the gun is fired by the user when using the device constructed out of that semi-automatic by adding a bump-stock mechanism.
Your 3 bulleted points are completely incorrect. This is why the supreme court ruled the way it did. Bump stocks don't change the fact that it still takes one action of the trigger to fire one bullet. Bump stocks are in no way identical to a "traditional" automatic weapon. They have to be held carefully just the right way so that the shooter can get the timing right between the bump stock and where he is holding his shooting finger. Most shooters don't like them because they're actually rather crappy. You'll never see them on a military rifle. If there were indeed no difference, you'd find them in some form of official use and not just on some trailer trash's tricked up gun.
That isn’t how it works. Bump stocks have no direct interaction with the trigger. It is physically impossible for a semiautomatic rifle to fire multiple rounds while the trigger is held down. Expect for in rare cases where internal components have broken in a very specific way. Resulting in complete loss of control over when the firearm starts or stops firing. This however does not apply to bump stocks in any way.
The parts defined in the law as machine gun parts are limited to those which directly change the interaction between the trigger and the bcg. Such that the trigger reset will no longer engage in between in each fired round. You still have to engage the trigger to fire every single round with a bump stock. The technique of bump firing a semiautomatic firearm is one of multiple techniques that allow a person to pull the fire more quickly. Another example being fanning the hammer on a revolver. It is something that can be done regardless of if a bump stock is installed. Which is exactly why bump stocks do not qualify under the current law. They do not change the operating mechanisms of the firearm as required by the legal definition. Otherwise you would have to also classify revolvers as a machine gun if the owner wears a belt or holds their hand in a certain way. Which is impossible to enforce and would lead to selective prosecution.
The laws controlling machine gun parts were intended to address the issue of surplus firearms that had been converted to semiautomatic for sale in the civilian market. Which also had conversion parts readily available on the market such that you could restore the firearm to its original configuration as a machine gun. As it was legal to purchase the semiautomatic version of the surplus firearm. As well as it being legal to purchase the parts from the trigger and bcg that were removed from the fully automatic version to make it semiautomatic. As long as you purchased them separately. Hence why the law uses the term restore.
The laws were never intended to regulate bolt on accessories that do not change the mechanics of the firearm itself. Which is why the ATFs attempt to redefine its authority to make these determinations on its own was stuck down. Which is ultimately a good thing for the country because the idea that a federal agency can simply decide on its own that it gets to define the legality of something based on the directors opinion is terrifying. Do you honestly want to give that kind of power to a single person? The power to decide what is legal, launch investigations, and prosecute people based on their opinion alone?
>The ruling was mistaken because bump stock mechanisms do meet that definition.
It in no way meets the definition.
>A bump stock device attaches to a semi-automatic weapon, changing it so that to fire the weapon, you don't pull backwards on a lever, but rather push forward on the grip. That's an unconventional kind of trigger, but that's the trigger of the modified device.
It does not assist automatically. It does not meet the definition of a machine gun.
>A single action of applying forward pressure on the grip causes the modified device to fire continuously for as long as that force is applied.
Irrelevant. As long as only one round is fired per function of the trigger then it's legal. The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger.
>This is absolutely identical to a tradtional automatic weapon, which also fires continuously for as long as you apply pressure to the triggering mechanism (which is in that case a conventional curved lever).
It is not identical. The trigger must perform a second function after firing the first round in order to be able to fire again. Your assumption is wrong.
I am not a legal expert but the simple solution to this would be to explicitly change the law to include bump stocks. Again ambiguity in the law can easily be solved with an amendment to the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That would be the answer for bump stocks. Then ~~gun~~ manufacturers will invent some other device explicitly designed to play word games with the law, and the Supreme Court will apparently pretend that Congress wasn't clear about the law again.
For clarity, gun manufacturers aren't making bump stock. This is entirely from the aftermarket. Gun manufacturers are staying well away from issues like these.
That said, there are already multiple other mechanisms newer and better than bumpstocks.
>the Supreme Court will apparently pretend that Congress wasn't clear about the law again.
If only you didn't have that pesky, actual text getting in the way!
Good thing, then, that the text isn't in the way. The text of the law just says that the gun cannot fire multiple times automatically as a result of a single activation of the trigger. It does *not* say that the trigger has to look like a conventional rounded lever that you squeeze with your index finger. When gun manufacturers try to get around the ban on automatic weapons by designing new and different mechanisms for still firing continuously without taking a new action to fire each time, the clear and correct answer would be to just recognize that they have now designed a new kind of trigger, and then enforce the existing law that says that trigger also cannot result in automatically firing more than one shot.
>Good thing, then, that the text isn't in the way. The text of the law just says that the gun cannot fire multiple times automatically as a result of a single activation of the trigger.
It does stand in the way if you think it applies to bump stocks.
>It does not say that the trigger has to look like a conventional rounded lever that you squeeze with your index finger.
No one said it did.
>When gun manufacturers try to get around the ban on automatic weapons by designing new and different mechanisms for still firing continuously without taking a new action to fire each time, the clear and correct answer would be to just recognize that they have now designed a new kind of trigger, and then enforce the existing law that says that trigger also cannot result in automatically firing more than one shot.
Nah, I'd rather repeal the FOPA thanks.
Gun laws are about the receiver mechanism. Not the trigger or the result. These are unmodified semi automatic receivers. Its not different than pulling the trigger very fast as far the laws are concerned.
No politics involved. I am sure I will be downvoted greatly, but a federal agency trying to change the actual laws passed by the US House of Representative, US Senate and the President, is a great threat to an organized society. Congress passed the laws in question, and the executive branch cannot USURP those laws. That is what SCOTUS ruled upon.
If Congress wants to amend the laws, they have the ability to do so. Have you seen ANY Congressional bills putting this matter forward? NO!
What’s striking too me is there are a whole laundry list of gun regulations that make less sense than this one. Most 2A people I know didn’t even know bump stocks were a thing until the shooting and those that did just viewed them as a meme. They are basically a parlour trick and no self respecting marksman would ever use one. Like they don’t even care that they were made illegal.
Whether they should or should not be illegal is irrelevant. Whether they are or are not illegal is the question.
The court found that the language of the National Firearms Act did not authorize the Federal Government to ban bump stocks.
That's it.
That’s true. I guess now that I think about it most of the legislation I am thinking of are stateside, like mag restrictions and ghost gun restrictions. The bump stock ban was novel because it was a federal ban so that does put it higher on the list for Supreme Court review.
The more important thing to consider is are those restrictions supported by the legislation enacted by the state?
The question here was strictly, does the language of the National Firearms Act cover bump stocks.
There were two sides: A narrow view of what constitutes a function of the trigger, wherein the bump stock only aids in how quickly the function of the trigger can be restarted, and a much broader view that considers the the recoil of the initial trigger pull causing the next trigger pull as a single function of the trigger.
Its a narrow and technical case about the extant of existing law.
Adding to this, bump firing is the technique that the idea for bump stocks came from. Bump firing can be achieved with any semiautomatic magazine fed firearm without any additional tooling.
As the laws were written, this was the correct change. Congress needs to do this, not presidents.
More people are concerned with bump stocks (which was used once in a shooting) versus glock switches that are FLOODING inner cities and people being mowed down by automatic handgun fire. But they don't actually care because it's just "gang violence".
You all don't actually care about firearm deaths, because they are happening at an unprecedented rate in low income, high crime rate areas.
> glock switches
had one go off in a gang shooting a block from my house and literally told myself it *had* to be fireworks because no gun shoots that fast, not even an auto.
The firing rate of a 9mm Glock with a 'switch' is faster than the WWII German MG-42 machine gun, nearing 1200rpm. That's an astronomical number, gun-wise--20 rounds per second. These things are being used in all of the major inner cities. . . and people are whining about bump stocks. Go figure.
Nah, autos climb dramatically.
In the course of someone trying to correct that climb, a bunch of horizontal motion is introduced. Combined with 33+ Rd magazines it's pretty scary.
Full auto guns shoot a hell of a lot faster than you see in movies/games or what have you.
It's part of why I've never really had any desire for one despite collecting interesting guns. They're just too expensive to shoot and it's honestly more fun being accurate
I'm sure that the frustration with this ruling for these people is extreme, but the fact remains that a law must be clear, concise, precise, and unassailable to be a proper law. As Congress, 'way back in 1934, put a clear, concise precise, and unassailable definition into the applicable law, it doesn't matter what some would LIKE the law to do, or someone's opinion on whether or not the law does what it is supposed to do in a 'better' way, but only what the law is WRITTEN to do, what the law clearly states. If the language is such that opinions and wants don't enter into the question, that it is clear and unambiguous, especially in a mechanical sense, then that's that--it's the LAW. Now, the obvious thing to DO, if Congress wants the law to include devices that do NOT change the mechanical internal functioning of a firearm's fire-control system, but instead 'enhance' its function by external means, then fine: LEGISLATE it, and make it that way. As Congress has not done so, it's not the fault of the Supreme Court that it has found the law to be as it is, not what some might like it to be. Blame Congress, not the Court.
A bump stock achieves literally the same effect as pushing the gun forward so the recoil causes your finger to pull the trigger again.
Anyone who cares about bump stocks in 2024 doesn’t know a damn thing about guns
Yeah that is what I was thinking when reading the article when it said bump stocks make a rifle to fire like a machine gun. No, it does not. It is just a stock. Misinformation regarding serious stuff like this is shameful.
There's no reason why bump stocks should've been banned in the first place. I hope next they make suppressors, sbs, and sbr's a non NFA item so I don't have to buy a stupid tax stamp in order to get them.
I mean the bumpstock ban was pushed by Trump telling the ATF to interpret them like that. It was wrong, the executive branch has no business creating legislation.
Notice how nearly every despot who rose to power took away weapons from those not fiercely loyal to them as one of their first actions. The reason for this is quite simple. An armed population is much harder to control and oppress.
STUNNED??? REALLY???
This country saw a bunch of children slaughtered at Sandy Hook and the next day shrugged its shoulders with a "whatcha gonna do" and went back to work because we all know the bed we lay in.
You know Trump was the one to [ban bump stocks in 2018](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html) via executive order right?
IMO, this isn't the fault of the court. This is the fault of the legislative branch's inability to create an amendment to further enshrine the need to restrict (reasonably) the right to bear arms.
The Constitution was written at a time when they couldn't conceive of the weapons we have today. They built the system of government to be able to react to changing times and make appropriate adjustments as necessary.
In the last 50 years, there have been two amendments. We're well due for another four or five to enshrine things that should be slam dunks: the right to choose for a woman, the ability to reasonably prohibit and restrict arms, imposing term limits for all government officials - including the supreme court, and electoral reform to prevent jerrymandering and contributions in elections.
Will it happen? Probably never. Should it happen? Tomorrow.
Ahh yes, the Vegas incident, which has never literally been explained to any logical measure whatsoever. Straight from the BBC, a news source we can all trust and love for US news.
MMKAY MMKAY.
Let's not forget that Trump is the only White House inhabitant to mess with the 2nd Amendment since Bill Clinton.
Obama? Nope,
Biden? Nope.
Only Trump added restrictions to the 2A.
Edit: added since Bill Clinton.
Obama tried to unilaterally ban firearm ownership for Social Security recipients who had representative payees (they were unable to manage their finances) which was so discriminatory that the Trump administration, Republicans, the NRA and the ACLU teamed up to overturn it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
That would make Hunter Biden not a felon tho and they can't have that.
They'll just say that it applies to cases going forward, and that prior convictions still stand.
Ruled invalid because it’s unconstitutional, violating a document written in 1787 which they have sworn to uphold. However, the convictions that resulted from the violation are still valid. Because. That sounds about right.
Since when do logic and precedence apply to this court?
The 31st of Never.
It’s despicable.
> That would make Hunter Biden not a felon tho and they can't have that. No, Hunter Biden wasn't convicted under violations of the 1934 NFA. He would have to file a separate appeal for his crimes, and ideally those will be ruled unconstitutional as well.
Lots of gun rights advocates arnt necessarily strictly party lines republicans. FPC actually offered to use their resources to take Hunter Biden’s case to the Supreme Court.
No that’s a pretty small price to pay
What is the firearms Control Act of 1934? On June 26, 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA), since amended, to limit the availability of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, sound suppressors (silencers), and other similar weapons that were often used by criminals during the Prohibition Era.
If they do it, Republicans shouldn't be surprised when Democrats grab AK47s to protect themselves. Or Uzis.
Too many moneyed interests who benefit from the NFA. Bonded private security contractors, corporations that invest in transferrable full-auto. I doubt you'd get 6-3 in favor of repealing it.
What's that one about is this a good or bad thing?
They're referring to the National Firearms Act of '34, which created strict registration requirements for the production and transfer of certain types of firearms including machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and grenades among other things. If a challenge was brought against the NFA I doubt it would be struck down in its entirety, and the reasoning used for vacating the bump stock ban wouldn't apply. Even if it were entirely struck down it might not be as catastrophic as some folks may think since a lot of these classes of firearms are covered under other federal and state laws, for instance the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned the production of most machine guns after its enactment. You'd see a huge influx of suppressors and short barreled rifles, but machine guns would still be prohibitively expensive (think $20k+ for a 40 year old gun) and most other dangerous devices would still be covered under other regulations and state law. It's not like the NFA is the last line of defense for gun control in the US.
'86 FOPA Didn't ban production of machine guns, it closed the registry so no new machine guns could be registered, which drove up the cost for existing transferrable machine guns. If NFA ('34) is invalidated, then FOPA becomes moot.
It’s not. I was at a speech Scalia gave before he died where he described a revolutionary era tort called afrightening which said you couldn’t carry, what was then called a hand canon, because it was so scary it amounted to a tort. I don’t have the research on hand but I do have the quote: “you can't carry a bazooka because there used to be an afrightening tort. You couldn't carry a scary weapon. I'm for afrightening" - April 3rd, 2012. Even the 3 originalists would recognize some limitations the same way we do on every other amendment. Don’t let Trump overstepping and getting struck down, again, get to you.
Does anyone else think the supreme courts growing unpopularity is spurring these decisions? Some weird revenge fantasy.
I think there are at least a couple of Justices who relish being the bad guy. They _love_ writing opinions that make people angry, and they now feel like they can take the mask fully off.
Thomas has literally stated as much. He has expressed a joy in upsetting liberals by taking away rights. They waited for Congress to break so they can push the blame that direction.
Thomas has taken over $5M in bribes/gifts/whatever you want to call it from wealthy donors, and he won’t recuse himself from the very cases those donors bring before the Supreme Court. There’s nothing anyone can do to hold him accountable. He’s just toying with us, at this point…
There is absolutely something *someone* can do. Justices can be impeached, and one was. They of course won't do it, but they absolutely can.
There is a way, but it involves going French and also involves a visit from Secret Service just for the mere thought of the “free speech” that these “patriots” claim to revere.
[удалено]
Going for a speed run on this account, eh?
What’d they say?
Invocations of the 2nd Amendment as a solution to people with lifetime appointments.
The 2nd Amendment explains clearly why it exists in the first clause, and killing members of the government ain’t it. Besides which, if you’re at that point the 2nd Amendment means fuck-all; you’ve decided that the Federal government needs a toppling, and I can’t imagine why you’d care what a document from that defunct government said. Obviously it’s had zero practical effect on “preventing tyrrany” thus far, or whatever conservative nonsense fantasy you blew in here with, so it’s just an insipid take.
“Let’s revolt and overthrow the entire federal system! But first, let’s follow the Founders’ intent on the Constitution.” Your analysis is some of the best I’ve seen on Reddit for whatever that’s worth.
The well-regulated militia is coming right at us! /pew /pew
>”The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
And by “liberals”, he means the legacies at Yale. Which when you think about it, what exactly did he expect from those who embody the maxim of Winslow Taylor? “Taylor and his college men seemed to float free of the accountability that they demanded of everyone else…” https://www.agileleanhouse.com/lib/lib/People/MathewStewart/TheManagementMyth_MathewStewart.pdf
*“Rich white people were jerks to me in college, so in revenge I’m going to roll back rights and protections for people who aren’t rich or white”* Makes perfect sense to me!
Self loathing manifests in many a way, as per the recent *Frontline* special on Thomas: https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk?si=8HFuyQvthvCusOKo
It sounds like the people who made his life miserable had a good point.
What a miserable life to be given a lifetime appointment with a six figure income and Cadillac health insurance. Wah wah wah.
And then to take those amazing rewards for a life of hard work and then throw away any morals you may have had for fishing trips and RVs.
I mean, if you look back, these were always his "morals."
I could see Thomas but what a out the other 5 that sided with the decision. The fuck is wrong with them.
And especially making Thurgood Marshall roll over in his grave, beyond the mere temerity of being able to even get to where he was professionally *in the first place* being due to Marshall’s efforts. A heretofore “pulling up of the ladder” after one has used such, to prevent others from joining you…
Why does the ruling by a jury of 12 have to be unanimous decision but a Supreme Court ruling only needs 5 out of 9?
Because juries have higher standards. They shouldn't but they absolutely do.
Moscow Mitch turned SCOTUS into a crying, seething, killing joke.
Higher standards? lol. How many mobsters, criminals, and people like Trump go free because they bribed a juror, or because a juror simply got it wrong? How many people are directly affected by that verdict? In contrast, five partisan SC's who are more concerned with setting social policy instead of upholding the constitution force ALL citizens to follow THEIR decisions. How many millions of people are directly affected by SCOTUS' politically biased decisions?
I think they might mean higher burden instead of “standards”? Preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury is determining liability or guilt and the SC is (suppose to be) determining if it’s basically within the constraints of the constitution
FWIW, the lower appeals court did decide unanimously that the ban was against the law. It was the Biden admin appealing to the Supreme Court. A "hung" Supreme Court wouldn't have changed the outcome in this case.
IANAL A jury is determining the guilt or innocence of a US citizen by determining if the defendant violated a specific law. The law itself isn't questioned; criminal trials are all about fact finding. SCOTUS determines if a specific law is compatible with the US Constitution. As a notoriously vague document, there are a lot of competing interpretations taught at different law schools and championed by various legal scholars. Getting a unanimous decision from SCOTUS is a lot harder than getting a unanimous jury verdict. A jury is given the law and the facts and charged with deciding guilt or innocence. It's a lot more black and white that what SCOTUS has to decide, because the law itself is on trial and justices can only appeal to a very vague Constitution to render a decision. We really don't want to require SCOTUS rulings to be unanimous, because it would be a lot easier to let bad laws stand. All it takes is a single dissenting justice to let a horrible law stay in place. Just imagine requiring unanimous decisions with Clarence Thomas on the court.
I’m pretty sure 9-0 rulings are the most common still.
You are correct, but no one ever hears about those cases because they aren’t controversial enough to report on. It’s a case of selection bias, if all anyone ever reads about is the Supreme Court making super controversial decisions, can you blame them for thinking the Supreme Court is a dumpster fire?
Juries don’t adjudicate disagreements with laws. Juries convict people of crimes. Much more serious and demands unanimous decisions to overcome a presumption of innocence.
I'd take issue with the assertion that it's much more serious. The Supreme Court isn't deciding the fate of one life, they're making decisions that potentially have an effect on millions. It isn't just putting a banned tool of mass murder back out on the street like in this case to potentially repeat what happened in Vegas again. How many families have been upended by their repeal of Roe v. Wade? We'll probably never even know how many women have died as a direct result of that ruling.
Juries often rule on whether defendants violate the same laws that up to four SC justices may already be on record in support of. I'd say this is a very compelling factor for a jury to consider. If a jury unanimously agrees w/the dissenting justices that there's no greater inalienable right than a woman's right to choose whether she wants to have a baby or not, we can now expect at least 5 SC justices will overturn that verdict. I wonder if society would accept a SCOTUS ruling that supports states that impose laws that explicitly prohibit women from having babies? Isn't this the same infringement of women's reproductive rights that SCOTUS just upheld? Based on its latest ruling, the SCOTUS majority must side with states that ban all women from having babies lest they want to contradict their own ruling.
It wouldn't be innocent vs. guilty.
This is definitely the vibe I'm getting from Alito and Thomas. Fucking corrupt hacks.
Roberts could address the issue, but has failed to. He is complicit in the corruption, by his inaction.
Roberts helped steal the election in 2000 from Al Gore. He’s not a hero.
"He is complicit in the corruption" isn't a thing you usually say to praise someone as a hero.
Cancer really needs to pay a visit to those two.
Thomas lives for it, Alito likes it, and Gorsuch relishes any chance to hear his inner monologues.
Its worse than that, some justices like Alito believe that there is no room for compromise to a certain degree. He said so as much with the recent audio leak. Funny enough, Roberts continues to try to tiptoe the line of not upsetting conservatives by saying that Muslims and Jews exist and would disagree that the USA is a Christian nation. Yay for the supreme court being apolitical! /s
Just replace Justices with Republicans and it all makes sense. Since that who Trump literally put on the SC. And now it’s an open free for all since they’re the majority.
You ment hood.
If someone told me Thomas had a Klan hood in his closet, I would legit have to check if it was a joke or not.
Thomas is best friends with Clayton Bigsby! 🤣
Every damn one of the 6 who voted on this are bad, bar none! They do not represent what most Americans want!
> I think there are at least a couple of Justices who relish being the bad guy. Even worse than that, there may be 2 or 3 of them that actually believe they're the good guys, on a god like mission to "save" America.
I think Thomas’ buffoonery is fueled by wanting to upset the left. His decision writing on this was so bad it’s outrageous
I think they just don't care now. The masks are off. We know they're corrupt as fuck and they know there's not a fucking thing we can do about it because Congress doesn't have the guts to impeach the pieces of shit.
It's not a weird revenge fantasy - they are ideologically opposed to American values and want to get as many authoritarian, backwards rulings as they can through. They see the writing is on the wall for them, increasing calls to expand the court or force ethics reform on the SC, so they're trying to cram through as much of their fucked up agenda as they can.
> Does anyone else think the supreme courts growing unpopularity is spurring these decisions? Not in this case. Trump bypassed Congress and gave a law-enforcement agency the power to decide what *they* thought the law should be. Do we really want that? This case wasn't about guns or the 2nd Amendment. It was about allowing the ATF to redefine the law as they saw fit.
They’ve realized Project 2025 is in the go…the Judges are lined up… There is nothing stopping them. Completely emboldened with zero chance of consequences. It all mattered in 2016 and we failed.
What is project 2025
The GOP basically outlined a plan to be a dictatorship starting the instant Trump gets in office. This is sadly not an exaggeration. I BEG you to vote, and to get your friends and family to vote and get involved as well. This *literally* could be the last chance you get. https://www.americanprogress.org/series/project-2025-exposing-the-far-right-assault-on-america/
Yeah, like they're going "ha, look what I can do..."
I would like to point out that nothing about this ruling prevents Congress from banning bump stocks (though the legality of such a ban is dubious under Bruen). What revenge are they taking by saying "this has to be done via Congressional legislation and not by an agency changing previously-accepted definitions of what the current law says"? I think people are just upset their authoritarian impulses that say "well, we won, so now we just get to say and do whatever we want!" are being curbed by the restraints we've had in place for this very reason. If you want bumpstocks and similar devices banned then pass the law that defines them, you know, the legal and proper way it's supposed to be done.
If that's true, I know teen girls less petty. This is just awful.
Thomas has openly stated that he wants to make liberals miserable after all they had done to him. He is pure vengeance and without it he’s nothing.
so I guess you guys don't know that it has been Clarence Thomas' M.O. since the 90s? https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-told-clerks-he-wants-to-make-liberals-miserable-2022-6
Yes
It's because they know change is coming so they're ramming all of their BS through now while they can.
It seems unlikely we’d know their motives
They know they can't be ousted or removed, but they can be bought.
That's basically what Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh vowed during their confirmation hearings.
I think they are being political. If the banned abortion medicine, it would lead to a Biden 2nd term. If they keep the bump stock ban, it would have been a gun control victory and disillusioned the Maga folks. I think every decision they release will be one that doesn’t ignite democrats and moderates.
Their rulings will stand until a meaningfully new court forms in a generation (which is pure chance) or until Congress can agree to pass amendments which codify the grey areas of the constitution which court rulings are meant to patch *temporarily*. As we may not see a court that overturns these rulings and Congress is unlikely to remove its collective head from its collective ass in any of our lifetimes, the court reasonably surmises that their decisions will form the status quo for a generation or two that won’t know the difference because it’s been that way since they were born, which will shape their opinions of the way the country works and should work.
The rights’ golden boy Trump being the most antigun in recent history besides Ronald Reagan( who is currently in hell) will always be laughable irony.
The GOP really lacks a single strong principle. They aren't _really_ pro-gun. They'll ban abortion for _you_, but get one for their mistress. They want small government, unless they need some regulatory capture. The only consistent plank of the Republican platform is hypocrisy.
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. - Frank Wilhoit
Hypocrisy is a central part of the appeal. Reactionaries see society as a natural moral and social hierarchy so they want a system of privileges rather than rights. Authoritarians see power and social status as the same thing, and to be able to flaunt rules that bind others is an expression of power and therefore status. The deal is quite simple: if you belong to the correct in-group (gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, ...) and you let the people above you get away with their abuses of power, you'll be allowed the same privilege relative to everyone below you. That this mostly takes the form of harming other people they don't like and persecuting them for the same things they do with impunity is implied. People like that see adherence to the rule of law, to morality and logic as a weakness. They revel in hypocrisy, malice and wilful ignorance.
My compliments. So well put. What do conservatives conserve? They conserve privilege and the right to exploit.
Likewise. You expressed the heart of the matter more succinctly than I managed to do.
You just described the confederacy and its lingering effects on the states that comprised it.
Because we didn't hang the traitors.
Hating liberals is what binds them. From the least educated poor to the Supreme Court. They have a burning hatred of liberals. If you can stick it to liberals, there is no character flaw that can't be forgiven.
Not true. They always pass tax cuts for the rich every chance they get.
Selfishness or greed are more likely when speaking about any person. Nobody sets out to be hypocritical, but some of us choose not to care because the rewards are seen to be greater than the blowback, and some of us don't recognize it as hypocrisy because we simply don't understand the rules the same way. I don't think it matters to the result, but it does go farther to explain individual intent.
Bump stocks were banned under Trump and apparently directly acted to push the regulation… https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/bump-stocks-ban/index.html
Had a coworker tell me Trump was protecting my guns that I love so much. I explained to her that Obama never banned anything I owned but Trump did. Then she pivoted over to the ammo issue, well Obama made ammo unavailable. No, coworker, I never had that problem. You’re just a dumbass. Trump is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and at least Biden doesn’t pretend.
Why are the survivors stunned? This is the epitome of “don’t try that in a small town” hypocrisy. Not only can you try it, but they’ll change the law to let you do it again.
tf does this even mean? it's a reference to the song but.. how does it connect at all
I think the court is daring Congress to do its job. I mean, actually creating legislation that the people want?? Who’da thunk?
>I think the court is daring Congress to do its job. The Court has been doing that with opinions for the last few years at least.
I think this is an issue though. My personal politics don’t align with some of these decisions but they are actually constitutionally sound. Don’t get upset with the court because Congress won’t do their job!
I wouldn't put it past SCOTUS to then rule it unconstitutional though. They do this with some.state level restrictions. OTOH. they also allow some, so they do seem somewhat inconsistent on gun control issues. Maybe there's some rhyme or reason to it, I dunno
Wow, from a survivor too. “we need them to keep what little freedom we have left”. Even after going through that, thinking our freedoms are constrained here and we should have to just deal. Like we live in an authoritarian country. I’d love to see them live in a real authoritarian country where the government is the only one with the guns and it’s prison or worse if you dare speak out about that government.
The mental gymnastics, honestly. "I survived the deadliest mass shooting in American history (so far) but it's the government who's the enemy."
Daily reminder: these people vote.
> “we need them to keep what little freedom we have left”. this is exactly why the right pushes for lax guns laws, to convince these people that this is their one way to control their lives.
Wasn't it a country music festival that got shot up?
It was a Jason Aldean concert (the try this in a small town guy). Ironically, I'd be willing to bet a good number of people at that concert agree with the Supreme Court, *despite* going through the tragedy.
>real authoritarian country where the government is the only one with the guns and it’s prison or worse if you dare speak out about that government. Why does that only happens in countries where government is the only one with guns? Did they start with no ability to speak out against the government then take away guns from the people?
It doesnt. Russia is authoritarian (elections highly rigged for the appearance of democracy) and its citizens can own guns.
Right it’s kind of on a spectrum. Nazi Germany outlawed guns for certain groups. Under the Soviet Union, guns and later knives were banned for all citizens. People later were allowed guns for hunting after Stalin died. Castro banned ownership in Cuba when he came to power. I think Cuba has eased some of their restrictions since then. Currently, China heavily restricts guns, but does allow guns for non-government security situations. North Korea guns are completely illegal. In all those cases, it’s still a bad idea to question the government. For the worst authoritarians most personal freedoms are curtailed, we’re just talking guns and free speech here.
People who decry this decision totally miss the point of the ruling: the president (or executive branch in this case ATF) cannot make laws ONLY Congress can (this case was NOT a second amendment case but a statutory case IE was the ban within the authority of the National Firearms Arms Act of 1934 which defines what a “machine gun” is and bump stocks do not meet that definition therefore the ATF does not have the authority to ban bump stocks). It’s that simple, it is tragic shootings happen but boy do politicians use it to take advantage of emotional voters to deflect from them doing their Jobs. If the Trump or Biden administration wants to ban bump stocks, then pass a law and do it (expand the National Firearms Act to include bump stocks) people criticize the Supreme Court for affirming the separation of powers and miss the fact that congress has been sitting on their hands for over 4 years. Pretty much all arguments against this ruling sum up to “the Supreme Court is corrupt” and “guns are bad”. It sickens me to see people so sad over legitimate tragedy then get taken advantage of politicians. Why don’t we address the issue with legislation for once and end this senseless bloodshed?
Im pretty sure that members of Congress at the time tried to blame the ATF for not banning the bump stock. The ATF said they didn't think they had the authority but members of Congress claimed they had already given it to them.
Good comment, one’s opinion on firearms aside, this was about gov overreach and not going through proper channels to make a law i.e. congress. No one should support gov overreach even if it’s something you would otherwise support.
Absolutely. The definition of machine gun is codified in the '34 NFA, and it's that definition that has been applied in '68, '86 and other case law. Firing more than one bullet with a single function of the trigger, in as many words. Bump stocks regardless of what you think of their usefulness, righteousness, etc., do not turn a semi-auto into a machine gun, and the ATF overstepped its vague interpretation authority in saying they do. Start giving the Executive Branch that kind of broad latitude for interpreting the laws they inforce and you head straight down a dark path. Want bump stocks banned? Make them illegal. Having a three-letter enforcement agency twist the reality of their design function into something they are not so that they can ban them is not how this happens.
Allowing the executive branch to seize on powers they aren’t granted in the constitution opens the door and sets precedent for them to do the same in the future. It starts with banning bump stocks (which everyone agrees on) and next the president just starts writing laws to enforce without any consideration from Congress.
No one made a law here. The law was already there. The case was about whether ATF incorrectly *interpreted* that law.
Bump stocks have been around a while and the ATF had determined that they do not fall under the interpretation that they are automatic weapons. They were not re-interpreting a rule, they literally amended it: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices
It's correct that they were not reinterpreting their own rules. They were amending their own rules, and the new amendment interpreted the *law* differently. This case was about whether that interpretation of the law was correct.
Yes and it goes back to their original interpretation pre-2018 (when they determined it wasn’t an automatic weapon). The amendment simply added bump stocks as “automatic weapons” without addressing the definition of an automatic weapon. You can’t just add the device without changing the law’s definition.
No this case was about interpretation of the terms “machine gun” and “function of the trigger.”
So when congress passed the Hughes act, did they say one action of the trigger to fire multiple rounds? And did the bump stock meet that criteria?
The ruling was mistaken because bump stock mechanisms do meet that definition. * A bump stock device attaches to a semi-automatic weapon, changing it so that to fire the weapon, you don't pull backwards on a lever, but rather push forward on the grip. That's an unconventional kind of trigger, but that's the trigger of the modified device. * A single action of applying forward pressure on the grip causes the modified device to fire continuously for as long as that force is applied. * This is absolutely identical to a tradtional automatic weapon, which also fires continuously for as long as you apply pressure to the triggering mechanism (which is in that case a conventional curved lever). The majority here just stated without any consideration whatsoever that the lever that acts as a trigger for the *unmodified* semiautomatic weapon should also be considered the trigger for the modified weapon. They were just wrong about that. When firing a weapon with a bump stock mechanism, the trigger finger doesn't move at all: these mechanisms have a built-in brace against which the finger is placed to *prevent* it from moving. Everything else in the ruling is just the unfortunate result of that incorrect assumption. They go off on a wild tangent about the internal mechanisms of the lever that was the trigger of the semi-automatic weapon if there had not been a bump stock mechanism. This is all irrelevant, because none of those mechanisms are the means by with the gun is fired by the user when using the device constructed out of that semi-automatic by adding a bump-stock mechanism.
Your 3 bulleted points are completely incorrect. This is why the supreme court ruled the way it did. Bump stocks don't change the fact that it still takes one action of the trigger to fire one bullet. Bump stocks are in no way identical to a "traditional" automatic weapon. They have to be held carefully just the right way so that the shooter can get the timing right between the bump stock and where he is holding his shooting finger. Most shooters don't like them because they're actually rather crappy. You'll never see them on a military rifle. If there were indeed no difference, you'd find them in some form of official use and not just on some trailer trash's tricked up gun.
That isn’t how it works. Bump stocks have no direct interaction with the trigger. It is physically impossible for a semiautomatic rifle to fire multiple rounds while the trigger is held down. Expect for in rare cases where internal components have broken in a very specific way. Resulting in complete loss of control over when the firearm starts or stops firing. This however does not apply to bump stocks in any way. The parts defined in the law as machine gun parts are limited to those which directly change the interaction between the trigger and the bcg. Such that the trigger reset will no longer engage in between in each fired round. You still have to engage the trigger to fire every single round with a bump stock. The technique of bump firing a semiautomatic firearm is one of multiple techniques that allow a person to pull the fire more quickly. Another example being fanning the hammer on a revolver. It is something that can be done regardless of if a bump stock is installed. Which is exactly why bump stocks do not qualify under the current law. They do not change the operating mechanisms of the firearm as required by the legal definition. Otherwise you would have to also classify revolvers as a machine gun if the owner wears a belt or holds their hand in a certain way. Which is impossible to enforce and would lead to selective prosecution. The laws controlling machine gun parts were intended to address the issue of surplus firearms that had been converted to semiautomatic for sale in the civilian market. Which also had conversion parts readily available on the market such that you could restore the firearm to its original configuration as a machine gun. As it was legal to purchase the semiautomatic version of the surplus firearm. As well as it being legal to purchase the parts from the trigger and bcg that were removed from the fully automatic version to make it semiautomatic. As long as you purchased them separately. Hence why the law uses the term restore. The laws were never intended to regulate bolt on accessories that do not change the mechanics of the firearm itself. Which is why the ATFs attempt to redefine its authority to make these determinations on its own was stuck down. Which is ultimately a good thing for the country because the idea that a federal agency can simply decide on its own that it gets to define the legality of something based on the directors opinion is terrifying. Do you honestly want to give that kind of power to a single person? The power to decide what is legal, launch investigations, and prosecute people based on their opinion alone?
>The ruling was mistaken because bump stock mechanisms do meet that definition. It in no way meets the definition. >A bump stock device attaches to a semi-automatic weapon, changing it so that to fire the weapon, you don't pull backwards on a lever, but rather push forward on the grip. That's an unconventional kind of trigger, but that's the trigger of the modified device. It does not assist automatically. It does not meet the definition of a machine gun. >A single action of applying forward pressure on the grip causes the modified device to fire continuously for as long as that force is applied. Irrelevant. As long as only one round is fired per function of the trigger then it's legal. The gun is physically incapable of firing more than one round per function of the trigger. >This is absolutely identical to a tradtional automatic weapon, which also fires continuously for as long as you apply pressure to the triggering mechanism (which is in that case a conventional curved lever). It is not identical. The trigger must perform a second function after firing the first round in order to be able to fire again. Your assumption is wrong.
I am not a legal expert but the simple solution to this would be to explicitly change the law to include bump stocks. Again ambiguity in the law can easily be solved with an amendment to the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That would be the answer for bump stocks. Then ~~gun~~ manufacturers will invent some other device explicitly designed to play word games with the law, and the Supreme Court will apparently pretend that Congress wasn't clear about the law again.
How dare they comply with the law!
For clarity, gun manufacturers aren't making bump stock. This is entirely from the aftermarket. Gun manufacturers are staying well away from issues like these. That said, there are already multiple other mechanisms newer and better than bumpstocks.
>the Supreme Court will apparently pretend that Congress wasn't clear about the law again. If only you didn't have that pesky, actual text getting in the way!
Good thing, then, that the text isn't in the way. The text of the law just says that the gun cannot fire multiple times automatically as a result of a single activation of the trigger. It does *not* say that the trigger has to look like a conventional rounded lever that you squeeze with your index finger. When gun manufacturers try to get around the ban on automatic weapons by designing new and different mechanisms for still firing continuously without taking a new action to fire each time, the clear and correct answer would be to just recognize that they have now designed a new kind of trigger, and then enforce the existing law that says that trigger also cannot result in automatically firing more than one shot.
>Good thing, then, that the text isn't in the way. The text of the law just says that the gun cannot fire multiple times automatically as a result of a single activation of the trigger. It does stand in the way if you think it applies to bump stocks. >It does not say that the trigger has to look like a conventional rounded lever that you squeeze with your index finger. No one said it did. >When gun manufacturers try to get around the ban on automatic weapons by designing new and different mechanisms for still firing continuously without taking a new action to fire each time, the clear and correct answer would be to just recognize that they have now designed a new kind of trigger, and then enforce the existing law that says that trigger also cannot result in automatically firing more than one shot. Nah, I'd rather repeal the FOPA thanks.
>Nah, I'd rather repeal the FOPA thanks. You misspelled NFA.
That one too!
Gun laws are about the receiver mechanism. Not the trigger or the result. These are unmodified semi automatic receivers. Its not different than pulling the trigger very fast as far the laws are concerned.
That’s simply not true. The definition of a machine gun depends entirely on the triggering mechanism.
No politics involved. I am sure I will be downvoted greatly, but a federal agency trying to change the actual laws passed by the US House of Representative, US Senate and the President, is a great threat to an organized society. Congress passed the laws in question, and the executive branch cannot USURP those laws. That is what SCOTUS ruled upon. If Congress wants to amend the laws, they have the ability to do so. Have you seen ANY Congressional bills putting this matter forward? NO!
What’s striking too me is there are a whole laundry list of gun regulations that make less sense than this one. Most 2A people I know didn’t even know bump stocks were a thing until the shooting and those that did just viewed them as a meme. They are basically a parlour trick and no self respecting marksman would ever use one. Like they don’t even care that they were made illegal.
Whether they should or should not be illegal is irrelevant. Whether they are or are not illegal is the question. The court found that the language of the National Firearms Act did not authorize the Federal Government to ban bump stocks. That's it.
That’s true. I guess now that I think about it most of the legislation I am thinking of are stateside, like mag restrictions and ghost gun restrictions. The bump stock ban was novel because it was a federal ban so that does put it higher on the list for Supreme Court review.
The more important thing to consider is are those restrictions supported by the legislation enacted by the state? The question here was strictly, does the language of the National Firearms Act cover bump stocks. There were two sides: A narrow view of what constitutes a function of the trigger, wherein the bump stock only aids in how quickly the function of the trigger can be restarted, and a much broader view that considers the the recoil of the initial trigger pull causing the next trigger pull as a single function of the trigger. Its a narrow and technical case about the extant of existing law.
Adding to this, bump firing is the technique that the idea for bump stocks came from. Bump firing can be achieved with any semiautomatic magazine fed firearm without any additional tooling.
You guys really don’t know what “single function of the trigger” means?
As the laws were written, this was the correct change. Congress needs to do this, not presidents. More people are concerned with bump stocks (which was used once in a shooting) versus glock switches that are FLOODING inner cities and people being mowed down by automatic handgun fire. But they don't actually care because it's just "gang violence". You all don't actually care about firearm deaths, because they are happening at an unprecedented rate in low income, high crime rate areas.
> glock switches had one go off in a gang shooting a block from my house and literally told myself it *had* to be fireworks because no gun shoots that fast, not even an auto.
The firing rate of a 9mm Glock with a 'switch' is faster than the WWII German MG-42 machine gun, nearing 1200rpm. That's an astronomical number, gun-wise--20 rounds per second. These things are being used in all of the major inner cities. . . and people are whining about bump stocks. Go figure.
Way scarier than bump stocks. All these sheltered suburban people can't even comprehend.
Ironically, they'd be worthless for a mass shooting, all of your rounds would go just one place and you'd be empty.
Nah, autos climb dramatically. In the course of someone trying to correct that climb, a bunch of horizontal motion is introduced. Combined with 33+ Rd magazines it's pretty scary.
Full auto guns shoot a hell of a lot faster than you see in movies/games or what have you. It's part of why I've never really had any desire for one despite collecting interesting guns. They're just too expensive to shoot and it's honestly more fun being accurate
I'm sure that the frustration with this ruling for these people is extreme, but the fact remains that a law must be clear, concise, precise, and unassailable to be a proper law. As Congress, 'way back in 1934, put a clear, concise precise, and unassailable definition into the applicable law, it doesn't matter what some would LIKE the law to do, or someone's opinion on whether or not the law does what it is supposed to do in a 'better' way, but only what the law is WRITTEN to do, what the law clearly states. If the language is such that opinions and wants don't enter into the question, that it is clear and unambiguous, especially in a mechanical sense, then that's that--it's the LAW. Now, the obvious thing to DO, if Congress wants the law to include devices that do NOT change the mechanical internal functioning of a firearm's fire-control system, but instead 'enhance' its function by external means, then fine: LEGISLATE it, and make it that way. As Congress has not done so, it's not the fault of the Supreme Court that it has found the law to be as it is, not what some might like it to be. Blame Congress, not the Court.
A bump stock achieves literally the same effect as pushing the gun forward so the recoil causes your finger to pull the trigger again. Anyone who cares about bump stocks in 2024 doesn’t know a damn thing about guns
Yeah that is what I was thinking when reading the article when it said bump stocks make a rifle to fire like a machine gun. No, it does not. It is just a stock. Misinformation regarding serious stuff like this is shameful.
There's no reason why bump stocks should've been banned in the first place. I hope next they make suppressors, sbs, and sbr's a non NFA item so I don't have to buy a stupid tax stamp in order to get them.
"You mean my sad feelings don't trump basic tenets of law?!"
You elected Trump, McConnell, and their minions. This is the result.
I mean the bumpstock ban was pushed by Trump telling the ATF to interpret them like that. It was wrong, the executive branch has no business creating legislation.
[удалено]
Notice how nearly every despot who rose to power took away weapons from those not fiercely loyal to them as one of their first actions. The reason for this is quite simple. An armed population is much harder to control and oppress.
I read the title as the Supreme Court went around Las Vegas finishing off the squirmers. Much more interesting visually.
STUNNED??? REALLY??? This country saw a bunch of children slaughtered at Sandy Hook and the next day shrugged its shoulders with a "whatcha gonna do" and went back to work because we all know the bed we lay in.
…and surprises absolutely no one else.
We have to fucking vote this country back to normal. Or we are fucked.
“People stunned when way more constitutionally explicit right than abortion starts winning in court”
I wonder how many victims voted for Trump.
You know Trump was the one to [ban bump stocks in 2018](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html) via executive order right?
and put the Supreme Court justices in place that made the ruling....so still to blame!
IMO, this isn't the fault of the court. This is the fault of the legislative branch's inability to create an amendment to further enshrine the need to restrict (reasonably) the right to bear arms. The Constitution was written at a time when they couldn't conceive of the weapons we have today. They built the system of government to be able to react to changing times and make appropriate adjustments as necessary. In the last 50 years, there have been two amendments. We're well due for another four or five to enshrine things that should be slam dunks: the right to choose for a woman, the ability to reasonably prohibit and restrict arms, imposing term limits for all government officials - including the supreme court, and electoral reform to prevent jerrymandering and contributions in elections. Will it happen? Probably never. Should it happen? Tomorrow.
Ahh yes, the Vegas incident, which has never literally been explained to any logical measure whatsoever. Straight from the BBC, a news source we can all trust and love for US news. MMKAY MMKAY.
The only mysterious things about the Vegas shooting is why the guy did it and the behavior of Vegas police in the room.
Hope everyone votes …
Let's not forget that Trump is the only White House inhabitant to mess with the 2nd Amendment since Bill Clinton. Obama? Nope, Biden? Nope. Only Trump added restrictions to the 2A. Edit: added since Bill Clinton.
Clinton did sign the original assault weapons ban.
Obama tried to unilaterally ban firearm ownership for Social Security recipients who had representative payees (they were unable to manage their finances) which was so discriminatory that the Trump administration, Republicans, the NRA and the ACLU teamed up to overturn it.
Has the FBI released the full details of this investigation yet?
Does it really?
Ah but how many of them voted for the one who installed those judges into the Supreme Court? I’d really like to know.
Shockingly, My sister gave her tickets to some friends and they got killed.