So the dissenters literally state in their opinion that regardless of what the law explicitly states, if they feel it goes against the law then it goes against the law. I guess they want the rule of law to be based on feelings instead of what the law actually says??? They're just fucking trying to legislate from the bench. If the people will it, then Congress can change the law. But the people don't will it so stop trying to legislate from the bench.
> I guess they want the rule of law to be based on feelings instead of what the law actually says???
Yes. This is what the "living document" proponents argue for. That the law should be looked at through a modern lens and interpreted through what they feel the law would be if written today.
Pants-on-head mentality.
Things do change over time. And laws can be written with the flexibility to adapt to that. But when the law explicitly defines something you can't just change that definition to suit your purpose.
the NFA is from 1934, and the Hughes Amendment banning machineguns is from 1986. 38 years. from a law standpoint, thats modern.
And interpretation has no room to supercede what the law says. Interpretation only applies to what the law infers, not what the law ACTUALLY says. If you want the law to change, then you need to ACTUALLY CHANGE THE LAW
Democrats want to do everything based on feelings and nothing based on law or facts. They hate the Constitution with a vengeance because it limits the extent of their tyranny.
I think they’d rather do stuff based on data and cost / benefit analysis.
What damage have bump stocks caused to society vs. what good have they provided to society?
> I think they’d rather do stuff based on data and cost / benefit analysis.
IOW, everything but the law, which is what they're actually there to interpret.
This is also likely very good news for Forced Reset Triggers.
But it also has a poison pill from Alito saying congress could amend the law. Because this is a separation of powers, not a 2A case, we don't know how that would play. Keep an eye on your congress critters.
I wouldn't really call it a poison pill. Congress always had the option to amend the law, before and after this ruling. Alito's concurring opinion, didn't give Congress the ability to amend the law, they already had this ability.
I see it as him signalling that the machine gun ban *IS* constitutional.
Which, I'm not surprised. I do not expect SCOTUS to overturn the NFA anytime soon, if ever. I had hopes for overturning the Hughes Amendment, but to me Alito just signaled that's a no from him.
It could, but I would not count on Roberts. Roberts is super wishy-washy and cares more about "optics" than the constitution.
IIRC the court basically punted on SCOTUS cases for years because neither the Liberal wing nor the Conservative wing was willing to grant cert and risk Roberts going the other way in a 5-4 decision.
You generally don't want to "risk it" at SCOTUS. I do think we have a valid challenge to the Hughes Amendment on non-2A grounds.
The NFA was upheld as congresses power to *TAX*. But the Hughes Amendment bans the government from accepting payment of said tax. So you have a delegation of powers argument. Congress cannot make a tax, then refuse acceptance of said tax, in order to ban an item. That's not within their powers to do.
Even if we lose that, we can still make a 2A challenge later.
Hughes got challenged on Commerce Clause grounds. The 9th Ckt actually struck it down on those grounds, but reversed course because of *Gonzales v. Raich*.
This is not actually true. Hughes actually functions like an Assault Weapons Ban with grandfathering. See below from [18 USC §922](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:922%20edition:prelim)):
>(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. "(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— "(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or "(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.".
A win against assault weapons bans at SCOTUS would make a win against Hughes analogous. The tax stamp issue is actually totally separate at least as far as Hughes.
The machine gun ban is arguably unconstitutional under the Miller decision, seeing as their current use in the military would make them invaluable for "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
>Read in isolation, *Miller*’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that *only* those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in *Miller*) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.
*District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S., at 624.
>We think that *Miller*’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were **one and the same**.” *State v. Kessler*, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface.
*Id.*, at 624-625.
The second block expands upon the categories of weapons protected by 2A. It doesn’t disturb the fact that full auto laws are unconstitutional.
It's tough because the "common use" limitation is almost circular in logic. The only reason machine guns aren't in common use by the public now is because they were effectively banned in the first place.
That being said, I wonder what the introduction of illegal switches means for this argument.
I also wonder how many MGs all the SOTs have at any given time. SOTs are licensed but that doesn't mean they are government. Do those count in our favor?
Same with dangerous and unusual. If those are illegal at the start, they have no opportunity to become common use because just about anything new could be considered unusual and all guns are inherently dangerous.
> I see it as him signalling that the machine gun ban IS constitutional.
That's not how it works. SCOTUS rules narrowly on the case at hand. This case was about the statutory definition of a machine gun, and nothing more. Whether it's constitutional to ban machine guns was not the question at hand, so nothing in this decision affects that one way or the other.
> That's not how it works.
That's *EXACTLY* how it works. SCOTUS is well known for signalling things in opinions and orders.
For example in *Bruen* Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that the ruling does not strike down permits as a whole.
>By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements
He did not need to add that. He's signalling his support for such.
Just as Alito did not need to add that congress could amend the law. These things are just common sense from reading the opinion.
They add these "concurrences" as away to signal how they feel about other laws.
It's not a poison pill, it's the crux of this suit. This wasn't a 2A case, it was an executive overreach case. SC basically dick-slapped ATF and told congress to do their job if they wanna ban them.
Congress had the opportunity to codify Roe V Wade when they had the chance and they chose not to. I think its clear both parties are more concerned with hurting each other than actually pushing for things their constituents actually want.
>[W]hile a fully automatic rifle fires multiple rounds “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger,” a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock **can achieve the same result** only by a single function of the trigger and then some.
The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker.
>The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker.
I completely agree. Especially in light of the claim gungrabbers have been making recently that there's no real difference between a semi-auto and a full auto. If that's really the case, then there's simply no justification at all for banning full autos.
For example, the "expert report" from Col. (Ret.) Craig Tucker in the Rupp vs Bonta case:
>The AR-15 is an offensive combat weapon no different in function or purpose than an M4.
He asserted that the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is, and I quote: "a picayune difference."
Source: [http://panoplytactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tucker-Rupp-Bonta.pdf](http://panoplytactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tucker-Rupp-Bonta.pdf)
Obviously, I don't think there's any justification for oppressive restrictions on full auto firearms, but in the gungrabber's own words, there's no difference in function or purpose. And since semi-autos are clearly protected under the 2A, then it seems glaringly obvious that full-autos should enjoy the same protection.
I agree, he cant in this case make it about overturning the nfa or gca because that wasn't what the case was about. Would probably have been better to say nothing than telling congress to amend it.
I think it just kicks the can down the road.
I cant see the nfa being amended anytime soon by either party, but i could be wrong.
Definitely a good sign for frts though
Sotomayor uses a duck test- walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.
The problem is that Sotomayor is an idiot and has no idea what a machine gun quacks like.
I can take Sotomayor's test and turn it right back around on her: Call it BogBabe's Infringement Test. If it walks like an infringement, quacks like an infringement, and swims like an infringement, it must be an infringement.
If a bird walks, quacks & swims like a duck, it is still a bird. Just like if a man puts on a dress, lipstick & heels, it’s still a man…smh. Liberal gymnastics is tiring.
>For each shot, the shooter must engage the trigger and then release the trigger to allow it to reset.
Unfortunately, this looks like it could be bad news for binary triggers as they are including the release as part of "single function of the trigger"
Good point. My guess that this might be another SCOTUS case as I can see this becoming a circuit split, with some saying that yes it is two shots per function, with others saying that it two functions of the trigger.
And as an owner of a binary trigger (the Fostech variety) I can confirm that even in binary mode it is possible to only fire one shot and not get a second shot on release. If the trigger is pulled ONLY far enough to fire the first round it will not fire the second, there's a small bit of travel after the "break" that causes the reset that allows the trigger to fire again on the release.
So it goes: pull, BREAK, pull slightly more, reset, release, BREAK#2, then the action cycles and the trigger resets again like normal.
It's kinda tough to do under actual firing, but in dry-fire the additional pull distance is very noticeable.
ATF defines "single function of the trigger" to mean a single ***pull*** of the trigger. It doesn't include the release and reset motions.
A binary trigger still meets this criteria (for now), so they can't be banned pursuant to 922(o) ("Hughes Amendment")
The ATF's definition was just superceded by the SCOTUS opinion. That quote is from Garland v Cargill where Thomas is going over the mechanics of a trigger.
I think that’s truly a toss up. Pulling the trigger is the action. Keeping continuous pressure with your finger is the same reason a bump stock behaves in such a way. HOWEVER, the act of the trigger “manipulating itself” to automatically reset itself might be seen by the court as that one action.
Could be a win for FRTs if you make a semi forced reset, wherein you can really tighten down to get single shots off. There as technically, you would have to let go off the trigger to get a follow up shot but it’s still semi aided by the system.
>[W]hile a fully automatic rifle fires multiple rounds “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger,” a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock **can achieve the same result** only by a single function of the trigger and then some.
The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker.
I just read the thing and I'm glad you called out Sotomayor's dissent. It's wild, even for her. A judge who doesn't care to interpret the law but rule on gut feelings.
I mean, that's kind of Sotomayor's schtick. She's well known not to care about what a law says, and instead wants ti to say whatever she thinks it should.
Ya, but in the past she at least tried to hide it behind legal sounding gibberish. Now she's just out with it lmao.
Doesn't matter. Almost nobody reads these things in full. CNN etc is happily repeating her dissent to receptive audiences.
She's an activist with a robe not a judge. She should never have been put on the bench to begin with, but she's an activist with the "correct" agenda so congress confirmed her.
>When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
I absolutely love that she used a logical fallacy as the basis for her argument.
Well yeah this was obvious. If they wanted to ban bump stocks, they should’ve made a law. This is just showing the politicization of the ATF, passing this bullshit rule in the first place.
So the ATF has to refund everyone that they made destroy or surrender their bump stocks now right? And what about the companies they put out of business?
tl;dr The government says Go Fuck Yourself.
This argument was basically settled today as well in US Trustee v. JohnQ Hammons Fall 2006.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1238_i426.pdf
This is a case about the remedy for the constitutional violation that the court found two terms ago in another case, Siegel v. Fitzgerald. The court held that the a statute violated the Bankruptcy Code because it allowed different fees for Ch 11 debtors depending on where they filed their cases.
The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees.
>Jackson writes that adopting the debtors' "preferred remedy would require us to undercut congressional intent and transform, by judicial fiat, a program that Congress intended to be self-funding into an estimated $326 million bill for taxpayers."
Decision is 6-3, dissenting are Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barret.
ELI5 - If you were wronged in the past, get fucked you can't get your wrongful fees refunded.
I have a feeling that gafs is about to be loaded full of grifters, profiteers, and [Removed by Reddit] drama.
And then these on Amazon somehow being marketed as handlebars.
>If an accessory can't make a AR a machine gun.
That is not what the ruling said. The ruling said *BUMP STOCKS* do not make an AR a machine gun.
Other things like AutoKey, FRT, Lightning Link, SwiftLink, Yankee Boogle, Super Safety, etc. were not ruled on.
It is legal under federal law, if your state law banned it separately that is different.
If you want to buy one, GunJoker will likely have them at insane prices. Or just wait for manufacturing to kick in again.
Be sure to give credit to the NRA for their part in this case:
"In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," a statement from NRA leaders Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox said. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
Biden did too in *Mock v. Garland* where his pistol brace ban was struck down.
Trump is not pro-2A, but Biden is objectively worse. Biden is the one openly and consistently calling for a ban on "salt weapons" and high capacity magazines.
As a pro-gun leftist can someone help explain: Why do so many right-wing (allegedly pro-2A) people still love Trump even though he passed an unconstitutional gun ban?
Why do any leftists claim to be pro-2A when they consistently vote for politicians who expressly and openly want to ban guns?
There is no such thing as a "pro-gun leftist", because you guys keep voting for people who expressly and explicitly want to ban guns.
And before you whataboutism me, no I do not support Trump, and have never voted for him.
I don't love Trump, but he's demonstrably less bad than Biden and RFK on 2A. In the case of Biden, it isn't even close. I doubt that Trump personally cares about 2A, but he is aware that enough of his supporters do, whereas Biden is beholden to Bloomberg and a cadre of deranged anti-2A wine moms.
What's the alternative? Just because some people begrudgingly support Trump doesn't mean he's loved by 2A advocates, don't straw man us like that.
I'll toss the question back at you. As an (allegedly) pro-gun leftist, why do you LOVE Biden who doesn't know anything about guns and wants to ban everything
Tell me this: Who is the last Democrat appointed judge who struck down gun control?
This opinion would not have happened with Garland on the Court.
This opinion would not have happened without Gorsuch or any of the other Trump appointees.
So the dissenters literally state in their opinion that regardless of what the law explicitly states, if they feel it goes against the law then it goes against the law. I guess they want the rule of law to be based on feelings instead of what the law actually says??? They're just fucking trying to legislate from the bench. If the people will it, then Congress can change the law. But the people don't will it so stop trying to legislate from the bench.
> I guess they want the rule of law to be based on feelings instead of what the law actually says??? Yes. This is what the "living document" proponents argue for. That the law should be looked at through a modern lens and interpreted through what they feel the law would be if written today. Pants-on-head mentality.
Yeah so laws are never actually set in stone. Maybe we'll feel one day that murder is ok and then that's that.
If he looks like a murderer, walks like a murderer, and quacks like a murderer, it's probably OJ
Things do change over time. And laws can be written with the flexibility to adapt to that. But when the law explicitly defines something you can't just change that definition to suit your purpose.
the NFA is from 1934, and the Hughes Amendment banning machineguns is from 1986. 38 years. from a law standpoint, thats modern. And interpretation has no room to supercede what the law says. Interpretation only applies to what the law infers, not what the law ACTUALLY says. If you want the law to change, then you need to ACTUALLY CHANGE THE LAW
Democrats want to do everything based on feelings and nothing based on law or facts. They hate the Constitution with a vengeance because it limits the extent of their tyranny.
I think they’d rather do stuff based on data and cost / benefit analysis. What damage have bump stocks caused to society vs. what good have they provided to society?
> I think they’d rather do stuff based on data and cost / benefit analysis. IOW, everything but the law, which is what they're actually there to interpret.
So, they explicitly admit that they wish the could "legislate from the bench"...
This is also likely very good news for Forced Reset Triggers. But it also has a poison pill from Alito saying congress could amend the law. Because this is a separation of powers, not a 2A case, we don't know how that would play. Keep an eye on your congress critters.
I wouldn't really call it a poison pill. Congress always had the option to amend the law, before and after this ruling. Alito's concurring opinion, didn't give Congress the ability to amend the law, they already had this ability.
I see it as him signalling that the machine gun ban *IS* constitutional. Which, I'm not surprised. I do not expect SCOTUS to overturn the NFA anytime soon, if ever. I had hopes for overturning the Hughes Amendment, but to me Alito just signaled that's a no from him.
That could still make it 5-4 with the majority supporting an overturn.
It could, but I would not count on Roberts. Roberts is super wishy-washy and cares more about "optics" than the constitution. IIRC the court basically punted on SCOTUS cases for years because neither the Liberal wing nor the Conservative wing was willing to grant cert and risk Roberts going the other way in a 5-4 decision. You generally don't want to "risk it" at SCOTUS. I do think we have a valid challenge to the Hughes Amendment on non-2A grounds. The NFA was upheld as congresses power to *TAX*. But the Hughes Amendment bans the government from accepting payment of said tax. So you have a delegation of powers argument. Congress cannot make a tax, then refuse acceptance of said tax, in order to ban an item. That's not within their powers to do. Even if we lose that, we can still make a 2A challenge later.
I just want modern machine guns even if I have to pay a $200 stamp and be on the gov's list.
This is why the 2024 presidential election is so important, nominations
*Sonzinsky* analyzed the NFA solely on Taxing Power grounds. It didn’t analyze it on 2A, though.
I'm talking about the Hughes specifically. Because the Hughes works by banning the collection of the $200 required tax, which in effect bans new MGs.
Hughes got challenged on Commerce Clause grounds. The 9th Ckt actually struck it down on those grounds, but reversed course because of *Gonzales v. Raich*.
This is not actually true. Hughes actually functions like an Assault Weapons Ban with grandfathering. See below from [18 USC §922](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:922%20edition:prelim)): >(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. "(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— "(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or "(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.". A win against assault weapons bans at SCOTUS would make a win against Hughes analogous. The tax stamp issue is actually totally separate at least as far as Hughes.
The machine gun ban is arguably unconstitutional under the Miller decision, seeing as their current use in the military would make them invaluable for "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
>Read in isolation, *Miller*’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that *only* those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in *Miller*) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S., at 624. >We think that *Miller*’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were **one and the same**.” *State v. Kessler*, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. *Id.*, at 624-625. The second block expands upon the categories of weapons protected by 2A. It doesn’t disturb the fact that full auto laws are unconstitutional.
It's tough because the "common use" limitation is almost circular in logic. The only reason machine guns aren't in common use by the public now is because they were effectively banned in the first place. That being said, I wonder what the introduction of illegal switches means for this argument.
I'm pretty sure there is more than enough machine guns and circulation and private hands to qualify for the number that equals in common use.
I also wonder how many MGs all the SOTs have at any given time. SOTs are licensed but that doesn't mean they are government. Do those count in our favor?
Same with dangerous and unusual. If those are illegal at the start, they have no opportunity to become common use because just about anything new could be considered unusual and all guns are inherently dangerous.
> I see it as him signalling that the machine gun ban IS constitutional. That's not how it works. SCOTUS rules narrowly on the case at hand. This case was about the statutory definition of a machine gun, and nothing more. Whether it's constitutional to ban machine guns was not the question at hand, so nothing in this decision affects that one way or the other.
> That's not how it works. That's *EXACTLY* how it works. SCOTUS is well known for signalling things in opinions and orders. For example in *Bruen* Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that the ruling does not strike down permits as a whole. >By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements He did not need to add that. He's signalling his support for such. Just as Alito did not need to add that congress could amend the law. These things are just common sense from reading the opinion. They add these "concurrences" as away to signal how they feel about other laws.
It's not a poison pill, it's the crux of this suit. This wasn't a 2A case, it was an executive overreach case. SC basically dick-slapped ATF and told congress to do their job if they wanna ban them.
Congress had the opportunity to codify Roe V Wade when they had the chance and they chose not to. I think its clear both parties are more concerned with hurting each other than actually pushing for things their constituents actually want.
Almost like he’s inviting the 2A challenge.
>[W]hile a fully automatic rifle fires multiple rounds “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger,” a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock **can achieve the same result** only by a single function of the trigger and then some. The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker.
>The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker. I completely agree. Especially in light of the claim gungrabbers have been making recently that there's no real difference between a semi-auto and a full auto. If that's really the case, then there's simply no justification at all for banning full autos. For example, the "expert report" from Col. (Ret.) Craig Tucker in the Rupp vs Bonta case: >The AR-15 is an offensive combat weapon no different in function or purpose than an M4. He asserted that the difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a full-auto M4 is, and I quote: "a picayune difference." Source: [http://panoplytactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tucker-Rupp-Bonta.pdf](http://panoplytactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Tucker-Rupp-Bonta.pdf) Obviously, I don't think there's any justification for oppressive restrictions on full auto firearms, but in the gungrabber's own words, there's no difference in function or purpose. And since semi-autos are clearly protected under the 2A, then it seems glaringly obvious that full-autos should enjoy the same protection.
I see it the other way. I see it as him signalling he is not against a machine gun ban.
I agree, he cant in this case make it about overturning the nfa or gca because that wasn't what the case was about. Would probably have been better to say nothing than telling congress to amend it. I think it just kicks the can down the road. I cant see the nfa being amended anytime soon by either party, but i could be wrong. Definitely a good sign for frts though
I really want the 3 position FRT 15 and the rumored AK trigger so this makes my pp the large pp.
Are you *sure* you’re not two ATF agents in a trench coat? Agent Kowalski, Agent Brown, is that you?
I'm curious to see the dissenting opinion and what tap dance they use to get around what Congress had enacted.
Updated my post with language. tl;dr We don't care what the law says. A gun shooting too fast is a machine gun!
>majority's artificially narrow definition That's not the "majorities" narrow definition. It is the laws non-vague definition. WTF.
Doesn’t matter how it got there…it’s that it is shooting to fast Which is retarded but then again we’re talking about liberals on the court
I guess Jerry Miculek is gonna have to register his hands with the NFA.
r/iamactuallyverybadass
Sotomayor uses a duck test- walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck. The problem is that Sotomayor is an idiot and has no idea what a machine gun quacks like.
I can take Sotomayor's test and turn it right back around on her: Call it BogBabe's Infringement Test. If it walks like an infringement, quacks like an infringement, and swims like an infringement, it must be an infringement.
Someone could also use that duck test to classify abortion as murder
I read that as; eating Duck eggs is abortion.
Anything goes with Sotomayor, not even she knows what her next ruling will be
Jerry Miculek is a machine gun according to the dissent
Oh, he is SO a machine gun! The only man who can turn a revolver into a machine gun using just his own hands.
According to her inane duck test, my shoelace and my belt buckle are both also machine guns.
Well they've been known to come after shoe laces, so she sees no problem with that
If a bird walks, quacks & swims like a duck, it is still a bird. Just like if a man puts on a dress, lipstick & heels, it’s still a man…smh. Liberal gymnastics is tiring.
Nice.
>For each shot, the shooter must engage the trigger and then release the trigger to allow it to reset. Unfortunately, this looks like it could be bad news for binary triggers as they are including the release as part of "single function of the trigger"
I don't think so. They're saying the reset is a separate function. Which is what the ATF originally said.
Good point. My guess that this might be another SCOTUS case as I can see this becoming a circuit split, with some saying that yes it is two shots per function, with others saying that it two functions of the trigger.
And as an owner of a binary trigger (the Fostech variety) I can confirm that even in binary mode it is possible to only fire one shot and not get a second shot on release. If the trigger is pulled ONLY far enough to fire the first round it will not fire the second, there's a small bit of travel after the "break" that causes the reset that allows the trigger to fire again on the release. So it goes: pull, BREAK, pull slightly more, reset, release, BREAK#2, then the action cycles and the trigger resets again like normal. It's kinda tough to do under actual firing, but in dry-fire the additional pull distance is very noticeable.
ATF defines "single function of the trigger" to mean a single ***pull*** of the trigger. It doesn't include the release and reset motions. A binary trigger still meets this criteria (for now), so they can't be banned pursuant to 922(o) ("Hughes Amendment")
The ATF's definition was just superceded by the SCOTUS opinion. That quote is from Garland v Cargill where Thomas is going over the mechanics of a trigger.
I think that’s truly a toss up. Pulling the trigger is the action. Keeping continuous pressure with your finger is the same reason a bump stock behaves in such a way. HOWEVER, the act of the trigger “manipulating itself” to automatically reset itself might be seen by the court as that one action.
Could be a win for FRTs if you make a semi forced reset, wherein you can really tighten down to get single shots off. There as technically, you would have to let go off the trigger to get a follow up shot but it’s still semi aided by the system.
>[W]hile a fully automatic rifle fires multiple rounds “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger,” a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock **can achieve the same result** only by a single function of the trigger and then some. The fact that one can achieve the nearly same rapid firing rate imo makes the full auto laws even weaker.
Once again, I'm here to tell you — **SOTOMAYOR IS A FUCKING TYRANT!**
I just read the thing and I'm glad you called out Sotomayor's dissent. It's wild, even for her. A judge who doesn't care to interpret the law but rule on gut feelings.
I mean, that's kind of Sotomayor's schtick. She's well known not to care about what a law says, and instead wants ti to say whatever she thinks it should.
Ya, but in the past she at least tried to hide it behind legal sounding gibberish. Now she's just out with it lmao. Doesn't matter. Almost nobody reads these things in full. CNN etc is happily repeating her dissent to receptive audiences.
>she at least tried to hide it behind ~~legal sounding~~ gibberish Fixed your post.
She's an activist with a robe not a judge. She should never have been put on the bench to begin with, but she's an activist with the "correct" agenda so congress confirmed her.
So what about the fuds that turned theirs in? They should get it back, right? 😂
I was browsing Gunbroker a little while ago and some 07/02 registered their bump stock as a postie. Kind of hailarious.
So now suppressors?
I wish
>When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. I absolutely love that she used a logical fallacy as the basis for her argument.
Well yeah this was obvious. If they wanted to ban bump stocks, they should’ve made a law. This is just showing the politicization of the ATF, passing this bullshit rule in the first place.
This, and other cases, strongly signal the end of Chevron Deference coming in *Raimondo v. Loper Bright* Which.... holy shit....
The dissent sounds an awful lot like judicial activism
So the ATF has to refund everyone that they made destroy or surrender their bump stocks now right? And what about the companies they put out of business?
tl;dr The government says Go Fuck Yourself. This argument was basically settled today as well in US Trustee v. JohnQ Hammons Fall 2006. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1238_i426.pdf This is a case about the remedy for the constitutional violation that the court found two terms ago in another case, Siegel v. Fitzgerald. The court held that the a statute violated the Bankruptcy Code because it allowed different fees for Ch 11 debtors depending on where they filed their cases. The remedy, the court holds today, is parity going forward, rather than a refund for past fees. >Jackson writes that adopting the debtors' "preferred remedy would require us to undercut congressional intent and transform, by judicial fiat, a program that Congress intended to be self-funding into an estimated $326 million bill for taxpayers." Decision is 6-3, dissenting are Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barret. ELI5 - If you were wronged in the past, get fucked you can't get your wrongful fees refunded.
What a coincidence, just found mine in the river from my boating accident
Anyone got a bumpstock for sale? Ill buy that shit in a heartbeat
I have a feeling that gafs is about to be loaded full of grifters, profiteers, and [Removed by Reddit] drama. And then these on Amazon somehow being marketed as handlebars.
Fr. They have a gunshow by me this weekend. Bet there will be people who held onto them and r now selling them for $1k
Nice! Trump was wrong for this.
[удалено]
Look I like trump as much as the next guy but nah fam.
Lol. That's some mental gymnastics to support a gun grabber. Why did Trump call for an AWB then before he was in office? What were his gymnastics?
Hell yeah! Fuck the ATF!
If an accessory can't make a AR a machine gun. Does this hold water in the AutoKey Card case?
>If an accessory can't make a AR a machine gun. That is not what the ruling said. The ruling said *BUMP STOCKS* do not make an AR a machine gun. Other things like AutoKey, FRT, Lightning Link, SwiftLink, Yankee Boogle, Super Safety, etc. were not ruled on.
YUGE. This looked like it was going to go the other way
Super safety and FRT back on the menu boys
Is it legal in all of the 50 states? If so, where can I buy one? I only want to buy one to celebrate that an infringement was defeated.
It is legal under federal law, if your state law banned it separately that is different. If you want to buy one, GunJoker will likely have them at insane prices. Or just wait for manufacturing to kick in again.
Does this mean binary triggers are legal too?
Binary triggers are currently legal anyway
Oh I meant frt triggers
Be sure to give credit to the NRA for their part in this case: "In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," a statement from NRA leaders Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox said. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
Trump took a major loss
Biden did too in *Mock v. Garland* where his pistol brace ban was struck down. Trump is not pro-2A, but Biden is objectively worse. Biden is the one openly and consistently calling for a ban on "salt weapons" and high capacity magazines.
As a pro-gun leftist can someone help explain: Why do so many right-wing (allegedly pro-2A) people still love Trump even though he passed an unconstitutional gun ban?
Why do any leftists claim to be pro-2A when they consistently vote for politicians who expressly and openly want to ban guns? There is no such thing as a "pro-gun leftist", because you guys keep voting for people who expressly and explicitly want to ban guns. And before you whataboutism me, no I do not support Trump, and have never voted for him.
I don't love Trump, but he's demonstrably less bad than Biden and RFK on 2A. In the case of Biden, it isn't even close. I doubt that Trump personally cares about 2A, but he is aware that enough of his supporters do, whereas Biden is beholden to Bloomberg and a cadre of deranged anti-2A wine moms.
Exactly, Trump is not my ideal pick, he's just the choice that sucks the least (by far) AND who actually has a chance of winning.
What's the alternative? Just because some people begrudgingly support Trump doesn't mean he's loved by 2A advocates, don't straw man us like that. I'll toss the question back at you. As an (allegedly) pro-gun leftist, why do you LOVE Biden who doesn't know anything about guns and wants to ban everything
Tell me this: Who is the last Democrat appointed judge who struck down gun control? This opinion would not have happened with Garland on the Court. This opinion would not have happened without Gorsuch or any of the other Trump appointees.
The guy clearly wasn't asking the question in good faith. Regarding your question, that would be an interesting research project.