Open link in next tab
US Supreme Court throws out ban on bump stocks for guns
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo
It says the government does not have the right to ban the accessories, which were used in America's deadliest mass shooting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo
It says the government does not have the right to ban the accessories, which were used in America's deadliest mass shooting.
As I said in the other thread... This wasn't a merits decision as to "bumpstocks good" or "bumpstocks bad". The point was that machine guns have a statutory definition. Bumpstocks did not fit that definition. Trump tried to use executive order to essentially amend the law all by himself to revise the practical implementation of that definition. That's not how the US works. If the president wants bumpstocks banned, he must use political capital to lobby congress to pass a bill, then sign the bill if it makes it that far.
To everyone whining about the outcome of this particular case, imagine unilateral executive authority applied to every area of American life, and realize what you are wishing for.
People have gotten in the habit of cheering on court rulings based on outcome, rather than any defining principles. I've been trying to encourage people to imagine the shoe is on the other foot and their political enemies are in charge, before contemplating expansion of federal powers.
To be fair, the supreme court has also gotten in the habit of making decisions based on outcomes rather than principles
In my opinion, a bumpstock does actually fit the definition of a machine gun, because the user-action to fire multiple shots in a row is one continuous action. Your finger becomes a part of the mechanical function of the gun and the trigger is pressed by pushing the handguard forward.
Problem is... by that definition, pants beltloops are also machineguns because you can bumpfire just as easily from those, and through exactly the same combined "mechanical function".
And if you attach a string to an M1 carbine just right it also becomes a machine gun. Constructive intent and the ability to enforce the law matter. We're never going to be able to ban strings or belt loops, and neither are produced or owned with the intent of building a machine gun, but a bump stock is clearly a purpose built device intended to turn a rifle into a machine gun and it's comparatively easy to enforce prohibition on such a specialized part.
It's incredibly fucking stupid to use these things for anything other than indiscriminate area effect, which equates only to spraying into a crowd in any realistic civilian context.
This is what really pains me is the bump stock is a device whose only real purpose is to hurt a large group of people with no regard to who is in that area. No one is going to be out on the white house lawn mowing down zombie hordes with this thing. Its primary intent is to hurt civilians.
Twaz the way it was always going to go. There is very specific wording for what is a machine gun, and a bump stock did not meet it.
Yup. From a legal standpoint this was the right decision. Too bad the SC isn't always so punctilious in its rulings.
Sorry, I don't endorse opinions like yours who advocate for a rogue Supreme Court that disregards the law and does what it wants. Change the law if you want to ban bump stocks.
They literally ruled in one case this term with a fake situation that never happened ( 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) and then lied about the background facts in another (Kennedy v Bremerton), both in favor of "injured" Christians.
OK, so you want more of the same just because this particular case aligns with your preferences? How about demanding a SC that narrowly does its job without acting like they it gets to decide what the law is?
Bullshit. Your finger doesn't move after the first pull. That makes it automatic by the legal definition. This is a bad ruling by "judges" who don't deserve the honor of the name.
That's not how it works. The trigger still resets after each shot with a bump stock, even if your finger doesn't move. The entire gun does, which allows the reset. While bump stocks make rapid fire easier, it still takes a bit of practice to get it to work. Still, by definition, it's not an automatic weapon.
While everyone here is allowed their own opinions on gun control, defining how a weapon works in a legal context is extremely important. The terminology needs to be very exact and definitions need to be consistent. The reason for this is because everyone has their own opinions and points of view. Those opinions need to be normalized somehow.
This comment is just about how the legal system works in general.
Pretty sure you can bump fire even without a bump stock. Wasn't there a "belt loop" trick even before bumpstocks were ever made?
Absolutely, you just hook your thumb. I've done it with an AR-15. It wouldn't be useful for hitting anything, just wastes money quicker.
Yep. My brother had an AK with a super light trigger that I could bump fire, but it wasn't easy and still was a complete waste.
I think you missed the point of the thread in your excitement. We are saying a bump stock is not even a requirement.
Tbf I had a guy try to rob me with a rambo looking knife and I'm not trying to ban large assault knives like his, either.
You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It's been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn't actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn't really change anything other than one less law to enforce.
Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.
No they don't. Lawmakers do, for failing to pass a law banning bump stocks. What exactly do you think is the role of a judge?
No they don’t (well… they do, but not for this). Bump stocks are a stupid gimmick that were only ever banned in the first place to appease low-information hysterical types.
Since a bump stock alone is just a useless object, couldn’t they have just been banned them without ever even needing to reference weapons?
Some states have. It's currently an open legal question as firearm parts/accessories generally get included under 2A protections as the right to keep and bear arms is infringed if, say, triggers are illegal. It's currently working it's way through the courts to determine the answer to your question and we wont have any definitive answers for years.
That makes sense. If you made all weapons legal but say, barrels illegal alone, its effectively a weapon ban
The barrel is an essential part for the weapon though.
There's a great amount of different types of stocks available for modular rifles like an AR-15. Requiring a fixed stock would still allow people to own a gun if they want to. It just makes the gun more annoying to use.
Im from the UK with very minimal exposure to weapons - and the example being a functional ban. But I think you’re saying that bump stocks aren’t essential as other stocks exist whereas a barrel is a barrel?
Ye that's right.
You could have the AR-15 legal as a functioning weapon. But make requirements such as fixed stock and 16" barrel. Such requirements would make the rifle more life a semi automatic hunting rifle instead of a tactical assault weapon.
Here in Norway you can acquire an AR-15 kind of rifle with many modifications. But the requirement is and active membership in dedicated shooting club. There are also requirements for activity in the club. If you want a regular rifle you can take a short course required for all hunters and buy the rifle after applying for a permit to the police.
I think that's fair as you regulate what kind of weapon people with different interests can have.
Sorry, can't hear you. Because of the hearing damage from using a full auto rifle without a fucking silencer!
That could happen with any gun loud enough, could even be a bolt action.
Suppressors are basic safety equipment, though, just ask France. Hell in some places in europe they're required to hunt to cut down on noise polution.
Since we have the NFA here which likes to pretend they're only tools for super murder assassins like Golgo 13 because they're so quiet they absorb sound like a black hole absorbs light (/s), we have active/passive ear protection instead.
I'd recommend the use of this basic safety equipment while doing anything loud, especially firing guns, unless unable due to it being a surprise self defense situation during which it becomes an acceptable risk.
You joke, but I litterally know a guy who recently completely lost his hearing from firing his AR without hearing protection.
How many rounds did he fire before losing his hearing entirely?
I ask because I have fired thousands of rounds, probably even tens of thousands of rounds through AR platforms without wearing hearing protection (while in service), and I only have mild hearing damage.
Except the fact that most indoor ranges have employees and rules and RSOs, you're not allowed in the bays without ears and eyes already on specifically because of this.
I'm betting that if his story is true, it was indoors but not on a real range. Maybe home defense or just being a dumb shit in a homemade basement range or something.
I'll preface this by saying I'm not American so the point of this isn't a statement on seconds amendment. What I do not understand is, why would citizens be so obsessed by this format of firearms that it would make it all the way to the supreme court.
Another indication that the US gov doesn't care to even mitigate mass shootings or school shootings. The most important thing is that gun manufacturers make money.
I give it a few days. It might have already happened, I haven't been checking the news today.
Well those 80-100 feral hogs ain't gonna shoot themselves.
What? The number? Well bump stocks were illegal so we couldn't keep their numbers under control. We were totally unarmed.
I wish I had a bump stock when going against packs of feral hogs, actually. Bolt actions are pointless and normal semi-autos just barely cut it, for this particular use case.
There is no love in my heart for those creatures. They destroy and/or eat anything they touch.
If you've ever actually shot an automatic weapon, only the first shot has any real chance of hitting what you're aiming at. Even the military reserves burst and full auto for suppression and pretty much nothing else. Bump stocks just add to the inaccuracy problem.
Machine guns were already legal to own, I can't even remember the last time one of those was used in a crime.
Now if they would just ban financial bump stocks, a.k.a. penny stocks, which contributed as much to the las vegas shooting as gun bump stocks did.
US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks approves mass murder facilitating device
FTFY.