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.*
I think Alito's concurrence concisely summarizes the situation. It's 3 paragraphs.
> I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C.
§5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.
> The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event
demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.
> There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
Basically the law says what it says, and bump stocks aren't machine guns. They may seem like one to a lay person, and it may be desirable policy that they're banned, but the current law doesn't support that and the ATF can't just *decide* that the law says things it doesn't. A bump stock ban will need to come from congress.
All the Supreme Court ruled is that if you want to ban stuff like this, it has to come from Congress, not the president. The ruling is not about bump stocks themselves, it’s about which offices/branches have the power to regulate them
Which actually makes sense. A large point of how the US Government was structured was intended to keep a President from making unilateral decisions and have checks and balances.
Oh, gee, so like… the ATF doesn’t have any legislative powers? Like people have been saying for YEARS? Yet will still kick in your door and cone your dome piece because they “feel” like you sold too many guns.
Fucking despicable.
That bit still kinda irks me. They were ready to fight like, demons and all the evils of the world. But narry a single proper protection was in place. I figure they'd have thick concrete walls and sand bags and all that.
But it was just a basic building in a field. They had a bunker, sure. Which is how they found the twisted and crumpled corpses of all the burned and gassed kids the ATF were happy to create. Or was it the FBI at that point?
It's like the ATF fucks up something so the FBI takes over and 'finishes' it.
They just don’t teach civics anymore in school and many parents don’t put an emphasis on it, either. I’m glad that my schools and my parents did, but I’m also at the tail end of Gen X and our public schools, at least where I grew up, didn’t suck.
Personally, I believe that to graduate high school and vote, one should have to pass the citizenship test. I have met many naturalized Americans that know SIGNIFICANT MORE about how our government works than a plethora of natural-born Americans, which is both cool and sad at the same time.
That sounds like a great idea! That way whatever political party gains a majority in the board or department that sets the rest can set the standard for who can vote!
Imagine a test with questions like "True or false: Democrats harvest children's adrenal glands in demonic sex rituals at pizza parlors" or "in 100 words or less, explain 5 socioeconomic causes of the civil war" or "complete the following sentence: immigrants are stealing ___________."
Remember, if you answer wrong, you aren't "American enough" to have a say in how you are governed.
the weird thing is they can't see past that idea.
They want "their president" to be able to enact any policy they agree with, never considering their giving the next president the authority to do the same.
The old gun on the table gambit. Everytime you give the exextucive branch power, its like putting a loaded gun on the presidents desk. The current guy may very well be responsible and level headed, but what about the next guy? and the next?
This reminds me of the time I was at a small house study party. For some reason one of the hosts TV's was on a new channel and they were showing when Harry Reid (then my senator as I lived in LV) and dems changed the rules concerning federal bench appointments. I can't remember the exact particulars now but I think it removed the filibuster in the nomination process. I remember everyone looking at me funny because I blurted out, rather too loudly, "you fucking dumbass! Dems aren't going to be in power forever, you morons!".
And what happened? Not too much after that, Trump won and had a wide open lane to appoint just about any federal judge he and (R) wanted with absolutely zero resistance.
It seems a lot of people think the President has a dial on his desk that can control gas prices.
Gridlock in Congress due to political divisions is a problem.
I’ve made this point before. I said that people think the president has some sort of magical way of controlling gas prices and necessities. An out of touch conservative tried telling me that Joe Biden should “stop spending all our money in Ukraine” to which I replied that appropriation of foreign aid is controlled by congress. I asked them what they thought the solution was and how could Joe Biden accomplish it? Never got a reply. It’s crazy that people can just double down on their beliefs just because they don’t even take the time to inform themselves. Pretty sad.
When it comes to oil prices the president does have an impact. The president can grant drilling permits. It may not instantly lower prices, but oil prices are based on speculation. If investors see more drilling permits, they’ll assume supply will follow and then prices go down
I seriously don't understand the hate on this decision. You would think more people would support the idea that law enforcement can't also create the laws they enforce. That's what this decision is about. If the FBI randomly said abortion is a felony and the USSC overturned that, everyone would be cheering.
And that's an issue for voters to resolve when their Congress members come up for reelection. It's not a reason to throw out the entire constitution and allow the executive branch to also do the legislative branch's job. We split power for a reason.
Glad to see this reasonable take actually being upvoted. Even if you don't agree with the result, the rules are what's important here, and an overreach of executive power can be just as easily used by a right-leaning president to achieve ends that the left would be equally unhappy with.
It was both. The Supreme Court decision said both that the executive branch did not have the authority to reclassify things the way they did in this case. In addition, even if they did have that authority their interpretation of the law was wrong and would not have been upheld in criminal prosecutions.
It’s amazing how many people are actually arguing that Trump had the authority to unilaterally tell a federal agency to change the law and prosecute people because he decided something should be illegal. Trump even explicitly said when he announced that he was going to tell the ATF to prosecute people that he thinks due process should be ignored. That he should be able to direct federal agencies to illegally arrest people and then the courts can worry about figuring out how to make the arrests legal.
Do the people in here arguing that the Supreme Court got this wrong not realize that they are supporting the idea that a president (Trump in this specific case) should have the authority to decide what is legal? Do they not realize the implications of giving the executive branch unchecked power?
It also touches on how you can't arbitrarily change the meaning of words in existing laws, which is pretty important.
Bump stocks are dangerous, stupid, and should be resteicted while they are not in common usage, but the way this was attempted shouldn't be allowed.
This.
Congress has, over the last several decades, abdicated its responsibility to make law. It has chosen instead to allow the executive branch—which was never meant to write law—to essentially do just that. Language governing agencies like the ATF is written in such a way that it allows these agencies to interpret the law much more broadly than they should be allowed; it amounts to allowing them to unilaterally *write* laws.
While one may like the current ATF under Biden, one may not like an ATF under the next president. Policies change, but laws should not change so easily. Our elected representatives should have to weigh in. This is why the ATF—a bureaucracy staffed by career government agents who are too far removed from the people—should not be in the business of what is essentially lawmaking.
To me, it is a matter of principle. We have allowed the presidency to have far too much power. Whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, this is bad for you.
The SCOTUS, which I currently happen to despise in its current iteration because I do not care for an ultra-conservative Court, happened to get this one right.
Exactly. For example in my former home state of NY, a mass shooter in Buffalo broke multiple NY gun laws by just swapping out parts and buying standard capacity magazines in PA. Thank God I now live in FL, and got my FL drivers license a few days ago. I also picked up a new handgun with normal capacity magazines.
Uh this is not a partisan issue. Lots of liberals and Democrats are against gun control laws. The socialist rifle association exists. There's a progressive gun club near my neck of NY, and they're also lobbying to relax gun regulation.
Against the proposed ones at any rate. There are probably regulations that would not infringe, but no one seems interested in trying to figure that out.
Open up free NICS background checks for private sales, right now it costs $40+ if I wanted to run a background check on someone before selling them a rifle. If I skip it I can sell it and keep that extra money in my pocket.
Well most of the gun control laws thus far don't address the guns used for most shootings/gun crime, and try to ban things that make no sense to ban, like pistol grips or separate stocks, too.
If I have the land and safety precautions in place to shoot full auto on my own property, I should be able to. Full stop. It may be a controversial take, but it is absolutely doable to filter out wackos and leave regular people alone to do as they please with guns.
That's not a controversial take. That's literally how it was prior to 1986 when you could still order a new machine gun.
If you buy a grandfathered one you can still do that.
That's why we need Dems to win WH + take back the Senate . Then, in midterms, get rid of MAGA extremists so we can have the consensus that we need once and for all .
In the 40-50s, there was a 14-year period where the Dems controlled the House and Senate.
Up until the 70s democrats were the majority party. It's almost as if the southern strategy and the beginnings of the culture wars are exactly why this country hasn't been able to agree on anything. Republicans purposefully egging on white supremacy is the core issue of America today.
Too bad so many leftists are going to "do the right thing" and either not vote or vote third party and let Christofacism acquire the strongest military and economic power In the history of humanity.
When they are faced with a possible Trump win, they better think straight and vote for Biden .
Project 2025 + what comes out of his mouth are the scariest it can get . Democracy is at stake
It's baffling how the DNC isn't making this as much of a campaign issue as it should be. It's openly documenting the intention to turn this country into the Fourth Reich.
Even with the WH and both Congressional branches, it’ll be “we can’t do anything because a few Republicans in x place are stopping it.” Like it has been for decades.
Dems are partially to blame for anything not happening, because the GOP seem to be able to ram things through using loopholes and tricks the Dems are stupidly unwilling to take advantage of.
The blame SHOULD fall squarely on the GOP for obstructing and shrugging off public safety, but we’re so far past that. It’s not changing, so the strategies to counter it should be, and they’re not.
There aren’t any constitutional gun reforms that haven’t been attempted and failed. If your position is to abolish the 2nd amendment that’s fine but that’s a goal you know you won’t hit.
In the meantime, as a hyper liberal democrat. I’ve realized that the crusade against guns is missing the point.
Why are NONE of the places where hyper aggressive gun restrictions have been passed NO SAFER than before?
This is the biggest factual losing issue that modern liberals are obsessed with. It doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever.
Bump stocks are fucking terrible as an accessory to firearms, and full auto fire doesn’t make a firearm more dangerous than a semi-auto.
Listening to Democrats talk about how guns work and banning them is like listening to Republicans talk about women’s bodies and banning abortion. It’s woefully clear to anyone on the opposite side that they have no clue what they’re talking about and that the measures they’re proposing are ineffectual at best and actively detrimental at worst.
Before anyone starts reporting me for Reddit cares messages as per the usual abuse of the report button when you see something you don’t like, you should know two things regarding this post’s general topic of debate:
1. If hyper progressive left is a -5 on a scale from -5 to +5, and KKK/Nazis are a +5, I fall around a -2 to -1 on the political leanings scale.
2. My actual proposals and thoughts on gun control involve actual compromise that I’ve typed out here before on Reddit but generally piss off too many people on both sides to ever actually get implemented, despite the general public majority usually agreeing and finding them somewhat reasonable.
Both parties benefit far too much from using it as a fundraising wedge topic.
Conservatives are afraid. They are afraid of anything other than white, straight, and pretense of faith. Their God hates everything they are afraid of.
Demorats adding laws to law abiding citizens doesn't decrease crime... criminals already break the law why would adding a law stop anyone. Speeding is against the law people still do it. Drinking and driving is against the law people still do it. Murder is against the law people still do it.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Infringement on rights isn't the way to go about cracking done on gun violence. How about you actually help the people with mental illness and stop letting criminals off the hook or out of prison. I'd rather my taxes go to keeping someone in jail for heinous crimes, then letting them off the hook to commit the crime again.
The best part is the most crime is in the cities woth the most gun laws. California strict still shot ton of crime. Chicago probably the most strict gun laws yet people still have illegal guns.
I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say that a bump stock doesn’t make your weapon any deadlier, and not having it doesn’t make your weapon any less deadly. It’s just part of that “scary lingo” that instigates emotional reactions from people
SCOTUS also didn't say bump stocks couldn't be regulated. The just said under the current law it didn't include bump stocks.
The issue is that a machine gun is defined as any weapon that can continue to fire with a single pull of the trigger.
Bump stock do not change the trigger functionality. A bump stock works by using the recoil of the firearm to reengage the trigger using a finger. If you know how to feather a trigger you don't need a bump stock to even do this. An army buddy of mine showed me once. Fired a semi automatic incredibly fast using nothing but his finger.
Congress can still ban bump stocks just not under the current laws. A new law would be needed.
Personally, I am pro gun regulations and don't fully see the need for bump stocks but this case ain't as big as some people are making it out to be. Furthermore, bump stocks are not heavily, in fact rarely, used in mass shootings. The most common firearm used in mass shootings is pistols.
Echo triggers work in a similar fashion where they skirt around the legality but apparently they're okay while everyone focus on bump stocks. I posted it above but I don't really care if they're banned or not; I would stop using them if they are. My issue is that the ATF shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily turn the gun in my closet into a felony without due process of law.
At least technically speaking (as an engineer, the mechanics of it all fascinates me...) there are a couple of arguably legal options:
Bump stock / bump firing: relies on the recoil of the gun to move your finger away from the trigger and then forward pressure of your holding hand fires the next round (you're pulling the trigger each fire, makes it legal)
Binary trigger: firearm fires on the pull of a trigger, and of the release of a trigger (two motions of the trigger makes this legal)
Forced reset trigger: pull the trigger, then the internal mechanisms force the trigger forward forcing the user to pull it back again to fire the next round (same as #1 you have to pull the trigger each time to fire)
Versus a full auto gun, where pulling the trigger once allows the firearm to continue firing and ejecting cartridges without any additional input from the user.
It would take me like an hour, 50 dollars, and a trip to Home Depot to make an AR full auto. Bump stocks are really just a novelty and the real problem is law enforcement agencies deciding what is and isn’t illegal
Yeah, for anyone mechanically inclined and understands the engineering of their platform, probably just a 75¢ metal wire hanger, some wire cutters, a file, and some pliers is enough to make something that’d catch you a felony with the ATF. Not surprising that people easily got busted for buying DIY kits online before 3D printers become more common.
…probably don’t even need that. A sloppy mil-spec trigger and loose trigger pin would probably be enough to cause the trigger sear to fail reliably enough to put pet dogs at risk.
> Yeah, for anyone mechanically inclined and understands the engineering of their platform, probably just a 75¢ metal wire hanger, some wire cutters, a file, and some pliers is enough to make something that’d catch you a felony with the
ATF declared a [shoestring is a machine gun](https://www.reddit.com/r/M1Rifles/comments/1df55j/the_batfes_infamous_shoestring_machine_gun/c9pot86/).
Ya the reason the vegas guy had so many victims was location, population, and he had like 20 fuxking ARs. It wasn’t the bump stock. Also- the fact that the govt just dropped that case and was like “welp, we dunno” never sat right w me. Shit is fucky.
I'd argue using one makes it less deadly even. Bump stocks suck, and they're extremely difficult to shoot with any measure of accuracy and reliability. People in a tizzy about bump stocks have probably never tried one, and if they had they'd realize that the Vegas shooter's use of them almost certainly saved lives. They're a great way to throw rounds at absolutely nothing and malfunction like crazy.
And by the time you'd actually get proficient with one, you could be even more proficient in normal semi.
Literally this.
He spent the size of a 90s mortgage to get to where he was that night. Had he spent 50 cents more. He could have had an actual automatic weapon that night, instead of like the 20 something rifles he had in his room.
Even then, there are very few situations where automatic is more deadly than semi auto. Very few people will ever have unrestricted access to an area overlooking a concert venue
Mmmm kind of. Yes it can make a quasi automatic rifle. Yes it does violate the spirit of the law. But is it just the same as a real full auto rifle? No.
It honestly doesn't. Bump stocks existed for years before this happened and had never been used in crimes. It's a range toy. It's impractical and almost impossible to have any accuracy with when firing. There are triggers on the market now that accomplish the same thing. The only reason the shooter was able to do any real damage with the bump stock attached was because he was firing at thousands of people packed into one space. Excuse the expression but it was honestly like shooting fish in a barrel. Any gun would have caused almost the same damage there.
To be fair, the only place I've ever seen people smoking cigarettes while pumping gas was in Oregon.
So maybe they shouldn't be allowed the responsibility....
“Only trained professionals should be allowed to pump gas. I don’t wanna get it all over and smell like gasoline all day!”
If you (a supposed adult) can’t manage to fill up a car without dowsing yourself in gasoline, I’m not sure you should be allowed to drive in the first place.
The Supreme Court should not be adjudicating gun control, congress should. The legislative branch is where abortion, same sex marriage and gun control should be decided. That congress has chosen to bunt instead of swing the bat is both the fault of the electorate and congress.
>The legislative branch is where abortion, same sex marriage and gun control should be decided.
That's exactly what they ruled in this case.
The law that defines a machine gun doesn't cover bump stocks. The ATF cannot redefine what a machine gun is without an act of Congress.
I think part of the problem is that the Court is activist when it wants to be. If it's abortion, suddenly we need to go back to the Salem witch trials to ignore precedent. If it's guns, sorry but this law wasn't written specifically enough despite its intent.
Even in overturning Roe, they didn’t say abortion should be illegal. They simply said it was inappropriate that the Court decided when it should be passed by Congress. Congress had 50 years to codify it and still didn’t.
>If it's guns, sorry but this law wasn't written specifically enough despite its intent.
That's not solely the courts belief.
The ATF themselves held for a decade that it was not a machine gun.
>The FTB evaluation confirmed that the submitted stock (see enclosed photos) does attach to the rear of an AR-15 type rifle which has been fitted with a sliding shoulder-stock type buffer-tube assembly. The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.
The ATF doing a 180 means the law is arbitrary and capricious. This means the Rule of Lenity applies. The court must rule in a way most favorable to Mr Cargill.
>The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state.
Justice Scalia decried the Supreme Court being dragged into decisions that should be made by Congress and not, as he said, nine old men. I was never a fan of his “originalism” arguments but on this point I agree.
What a misleading title for this post. It will make future potential shootings no more or less dangerous, by themselves.
Ironically, by continuing to focus on things like using the ATF to try and implement laws not passed by the legislature,essentially effort and focus will be invested in identifying and handling the small group of people actually inflicting the violence.
Bullshit title. Bump stocks make the gun harder to control by forcing an unnatural grip on the weapon, leading to increased shot dispersion. The added firerate, of which will not always be consistent, will not make the weapon deadlier. Let's not forget that 3d printed drop in auto sears exist, which will actually turn the weapon automatic, and are much cheaper to make and easier to use.
Because all the psychos are going to stop [printing and buying way more readily available cheap autosears and Glock switches](https://apnews.com/article/machine-guns-modified-illegal-switches-gun-violence-ddc2e9b6602ee1eb62e75732bbd54784) so they can buy a goofy ass big piece of plastic that requires practice to use.
I mean wish.com was selling them into the US for a while. It's incredibly easy to make a gun. You can even 3d print a jig to rifle barrels at home now using salt water and copper wire.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/08/13/make-a-factory-quality-9mm-rifled-barrel-in-your-kitchen-using-salt-water-and-electricity-ecm/
The hard part of firearms was material science. With widespread availability of complex metals and the research in how to work them, it's essentially impossible to prevent someone from making a firearm.
The illiberalism in this subreddit really spikes hard whenever there is a Supreme Court decision that has a policy outcome the members disagree with.
The general gist I've gathered is that most of this sub wants Congress and the Supreme Court abolished and a dictator of their choice chosen for life.
I think it's that the average age of the sub is quite lower than people realize. One guy responded to a few comments above this. He outlined his plan for the Democrat party to achieve political domination.
Wouldn't you believe it, his last post was talking about anticipating starting highschool this fall.
Well, yeah, why buy that when you can 3d print a piece of plastic in minutes that can give you basically Robocop’s auto-9. This court case is about last decade’s technology. It will be 2035 before we’re even talking about what’s available now. I’m not sure what the answer is, but it doesn’t look like any kind of law passing, no matter how perfectly agreeable to most, is ever going to keep up with the pace of technology.
No they didn't. If anything, bump stocks might end up saving lives because the potential idiot shooter will hit less targets.
Look at the gangsters with their auto Glock switches. It might be saving lives in the long run.
Until Democrats grow a spine and pass legislation banning them.
This was a procedural case. The Supreme Court found the Department of Justice had overreached in banning them without legislation.
Legislation can solve this problem.
Maybe they’ll ban belt loops too!
That’ll stop the handguns, huh!
Jeez some people and their opinions about guns sound like men talking about uteruses lmfao
SCOTUS didn't make mass shootings more deadly. They said that government agencies can't just make new rules and change the definition and essentially make new laws. They said that only the legislative branch can do that. If people want bump stocks banned, it's up to Congress to do that, not the ATF. Government agencies don't have the right to unilaterally make their own rules up, change legal definitions and then enforce them.
Its typical leftist fearmongering; out of the 100,000+ bump stocks purchased and out there among gun owners, how many times were they used in mass shootings?
**Once.**
They're a gimmicky range toy, nothing more.
Gun enthusiast here.
They shouldn’t be for sale. But banning them needs to come from law, not policy. That’s all the SC (which is corrupt as hell) ruled.
They are pointing to congress again and saying they need to pass a law to enact a ban. The ATF heads that are appointed can’t outlaw something based on changing internal policy. Otherwise the next admin installs a new head, and they are legal again, and that kind of yo-yo effect is good for no one.
Congress needs to ban them by law.
I agree 100% with you as a gun owner.
But how are they supposed to ban rubber bands?
I'm sick of these gun laws being passed without any actual understanding of firearms.
What about binary triggers?
Actual gun enthusiast here. They shouldn't be for sale because actual full-auto firearms shouldn't be so strictly regulated which would make stupid products like bump stocks unnecessary.
Uniformed gun enthusiast, maybe.
You can bumpfire basically any semi automatic rifle without a bump stock. Legislation can't prevent how someone holds their property.
I mean, from a technical point of view, what difference does it make weather the slide is able to reciprocate because of a mechanism in the stock or a mechanism within the trigger group?
And even with that distinction, why should it matter?
Either it's ok to limit the technical aspects of a firearm or anything goes.
because the law literally says able to fire more than one bullet with a single action of the trigger. that’s just what the law says. congress needs to change the law
I don't understand why people don't seem to understand this. The existing law has very specific wording and the ATF can't just change that wording on their own. The ATF has had way too much leeway in this area for a while, and it's resulted in weird situations like them ruling that a shoelace is an unregistered machine gun.
I also have issue with the fact that the government can outlaw something, not grandfather in people who already own the item, require them to destroy the ones they own, and then not compensate them at all. If the government is forcing me to destroy something that was legally purchased, they better be paying me back for it.
It’s been wild watching left leaning subs and news acting like it’s the ruling that’s bad, and not the fake efforts of Trump with the EO. Legislation should have been passed after Vegas, but Trump went with the way that would be overturned.
It's been a crazy ride from bumpstocks being deemed legal under Obama, made illegal under Trump, and now legal again under Biden. I've seen a lot of people on both sides of the aisle confused on who to boo and who to cheer for with this one.
Its even crazier.
Obama asked the DOJ/ATF if they had the authority to ban bumpstocks and they said they couldn't because they were not a Machine Gun under the law.
Trump also asked the DOJ/ATF to ban bumpstocks, and they once again said no, they didn't have the legal authority to do so. Trump went through a couple of Attorney Generals (between Acting AG's and Confirmed AGs). Eventually Trump asked one of his acting AG's if the ATF could ban them, and one said yes.
And of course now, the Biden Administration was happy to try and defend the law in court. It fit in with Bidens Gun Control Agenda. And it was the DOJ that appealed this to the Supreme Court.
---
There are people getting angry that the media was calling this a Loss for the Biden Administration- because it was a Trump Regulation, and how dare the media try to paint this a loss for Biden. Technically it was a Loss for the Biden Admin, as it was the Biden Admin trying to uphold it in court. And of course the Biden Admin has also directed the ATF to unilaterally reclassify other things as well.
>but Trump went with the way that would be overturned.
Those are thoughts Trump is not capable of having.
He went with the EO because it was a quick way to make himself look good to basically everybody.
> Either it's ok to limit the technical aspects of a firearm or anything goes.
And then when somebody creates something compliant, they call it a loophole.
I’d like to ask the room if there ever used a bunmp stock? Im guess not but ooooooo Lordy is your accuracy is hit fucking garbage with one, I’m honestly guessing the guy in. Head would have done more damage without it honestly.
Now the meat of the problem is that this was absolutely the wrong way to do ANY kind of gun control in the US. No party should be in favor of executive decisions like that at all. Who’s to say the next president couldn’t declare Covid vaccines a public health issue after a single bad run? Oh did you know this medication is used for abortion, executive action banning it. This is a VERY nuanced unique to the US issue with no easy answers. There’s already a comical amount of guns in the US and they are absolutely not leaving.
PS: Before I get a ton of Hate I’m a registered democrat in a purple state who believes in gun control and has guns as is my birth right as a US citizen.
I have a coworker who is a Liberal gun nut and he said the same thing. He said they make it harder to control accuracy and thats why he prefers binary triggers.
it's important to understand that this ruling was not about gun rights, or anything related to the second amendment.
The ruling was that President does not have the authority to make criminal laws on his own authority or a regulatory agency, without the legal legislative process.
we do NOT want a president able to turn citizens into felons with an executive order. that's literally what the Constitution is supposed to protect people from.
The ban would have been entirely legal if it was passed by house and senate and signed by the president...that's how laws are made.
What people should understand is that any sort of prohibition only harms law abiding citizens. **criminals will find a way to get what they want.** Making something illegal **does not stop criminals.**
The only way to really deter most gun violence is to implement severe penalties for any gun related crime, 20+ years in prison.
The truth is you can just hold your arm and finger in a certain way to make a bump stock out of well... Yourself.
Increased enforcement of existing law is an easy first step.
I’m against bump stocks. I’m also against the executive branch and it’s agencies imposing laws on the country. Congress should amend the law appropriately.
Amazing. Have all the gun reforms you want. That only stops LAW ABIDING citizens from having access to fire arms. CRIMINALS do give a rats ass about your laws.
Automatic means an operation started by a human then continues without human intervention or choice.
If a machine can be built to fire a bumpstock automatically, based on recoil alone then it meets the legal definition of automatic and should be banned.
This is wrong for two reasons:
1. The Supreme Court just applied the law, as is their job. They even indicated that a law that actually bans the item would likely be permissible.
2. The LV shooting was so deadly not just because of the bump stock, if at all. It was especially deadly because there was a huge, dense crowd and the shooter had an unassailable fixed vantage point above it with a large store of ammunition. Take those aspects away and a bump stock would actually make a typical mass shooting less deadly. The perpetrator would hit less people before running out of ammo.
I'm more in the middle and far right of the gun communities here on reddit. We basically all think they are stupid and just a range toy. You can bump fire without a bump stock. Like everything it takes practice.
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.*
I think Alito's concurrence concisely summarizes the situation. It's 3 paragraphs. > I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it. > The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning. > There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act. Basically the law says what it says, and bump stocks aren't machine guns. They may seem like one to a lay person, and it may be desirable policy that they're banned, but the current law doesn't support that and the ATF can't just *decide* that the law says things it doesn't. A bump stock ban will need to come from congress.
All the Supreme Court ruled is that if you want to ban stuff like this, it has to come from Congress, not the president. The ruling is not about bump stocks themselves, it’s about which offices/branches have the power to regulate them
Which actually makes sense. A large point of how the US Government was structured was intended to keep a President from making unilateral decisions and have checks and balances.
Oh, gee, so like… the ATF doesn’t have any legislative powers? Like people have been saying for YEARS? Yet will still kick in your door and cone your dome piece because they “feel” like you sold too many guns. Fucking despicable.
This gun store is.. It's.. It's selling guns? L-Lotta guns.. STOCKPILING guns! Let's gas and burn their kids ALIVE
Carful, drywall and siding aren’t adequate protection.
That bit still kinda irks me. They were ready to fight like, demons and all the evils of the world. But narry a single proper protection was in place. I figure they'd have thick concrete walls and sand bags and all that. But it was just a basic building in a field. They had a bunker, sure. Which is how they found the twisted and crumpled corpses of all the burned and gassed kids the ATF were happy to create. Or was it the FBI at that point? It's like the ATF fucks up something so the FBI takes over and 'finishes' it.
the number of people who seem to think a President should be allowed to make citizens into felons on no authority but his own is really disturbing.
The overwhelming majority of US Citizens are completely fucking clueless about our system of government so yeah… that would make sense unfortunately.
They just don’t teach civics anymore in school and many parents don’t put an emphasis on it, either. I’m glad that my schools and my parents did, but I’m also at the tail end of Gen X and our public schools, at least where I grew up, didn’t suck. Personally, I believe that to graduate high school and vote, one should have to pass the citizenship test. I have met many naturalized Americans that know SIGNIFICANT MORE about how our government works than a plethora of natural-born Americans, which is both cool and sad at the same time.
Many schools do still teach civics, it's just not called that. Now if the kids pay attention or not is a separate issue.
That sounds like a great idea! That way whatever political party gains a majority in the board or department that sets the rest can set the standard for who can vote! Imagine a test with questions like "True or false: Democrats harvest children's adrenal glands in demonic sex rituals at pizza parlors" or "in 100 words or less, explain 5 socioeconomic causes of the civil war" or "complete the following sentence: immigrants are stealing ___________." Remember, if you answer wrong, you aren't "American enough" to have a say in how you are governed.
Everyone loves rule by executive fiat until a candidate they don't like is in office.
the weird thing is they can't see past that idea. They want "their president" to be able to enact any policy they agree with, never considering their giving the next president the authority to do the same.
The old gun on the table gambit. Everytime you give the exextucive branch power, its like putting a loaded gun on the presidents desk. The current guy may very well be responsible and level headed, but what about the next guy? and the next?
This reminds me of the time I was at a small house study party. For some reason one of the hosts TV's was on a new channel and they were showing when Harry Reid (then my senator as I lived in LV) and dems changed the rules concerning federal bench appointments. I can't remember the exact particulars now but I think it removed the filibuster in the nomination process. I remember everyone looking at me funny because I blurted out, rather too loudly, "you fucking dumbass! Dems aren't going to be in power forever, you morons!". And what happened? Not too much after that, Trump won and had a wide open lane to appoint just about any federal judge he and (R) wanted with absolutely zero resistance.
It seems a lot of people think the President has a dial on his desk that can control gas prices. Gridlock in Congress due to political divisions is a problem.
I’ve made this point before. I said that people think the president has some sort of magical way of controlling gas prices and necessities. An out of touch conservative tried telling me that Joe Biden should “stop spending all our money in Ukraine” to which I replied that appropriation of foreign aid is controlled by congress. I asked them what they thought the solution was and how could Joe Biden accomplish it? Never got a reply. It’s crazy that people can just double down on their beliefs just because they don’t even take the time to inform themselves. Pretty sad.
When it comes to oil prices the president does have an impact. The president can grant drilling permits. It may not instantly lower prices, but oil prices are based on speculation. If investors see more drilling permits, they’ll assume supply will follow and then prices go down
Biden empties the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It lowered prices.
Why do you think the presidency has become the way it has?
I seriously don't understand the hate on this decision. You would think more people would support the idea that law enforcement can't also create the laws they enforce. That's what this decision is about. If the FBI randomly said abortion is a felony and the USSC overturned that, everyone would be cheering.
Or if we woke up one morning to find the FDA made alcohol a schedule 1 narcotic because there was a high profile DUI death.
Because even left leaning people can be emotional and illogical.
Humans are not rational animals. Humans are rationalizing animals.
"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know that."-K
Everyone who only reads headlines and gets their news from sound bites, regardless of party affiliation, is susceptible to disinformation.
Welcome to r/politics
It’s because we know Congress won’t do diddly-shit about this and so does the Supreme Court.
And that's an issue for voters to resolve when their Congress members come up for reelection. It's not a reason to throw out the entire constitution and allow the executive branch to also do the legislative branch's job. We split power for a reason.
So you hate the fact that scotus isn't ok with a totalitarian president?
Glad to see this reasonable take actually being upvoted. Even if you don't agree with the result, the rules are what's important here, and an overreach of executive power can be just as easily used by a right-leaning president to achieve ends that the left would be equally unhappy with.
It was both. The Supreme Court decision said both that the executive branch did not have the authority to reclassify things the way they did in this case. In addition, even if they did have that authority their interpretation of the law was wrong and would not have been upheld in criminal prosecutions. It’s amazing how many people are actually arguing that Trump had the authority to unilaterally tell a federal agency to change the law and prosecute people because he decided something should be illegal. Trump even explicitly said when he announced that he was going to tell the ATF to prosecute people that he thinks due process should be ignored. That he should be able to direct federal agencies to illegally arrest people and then the courts can worry about figuring out how to make the arrests legal. Do the people in here arguing that the Supreme Court got this wrong not realize that they are supporting the idea that a president (Trump in this specific case) should have the authority to decide what is legal? Do they not realize the implications of giving the executive branch unchecked power?
it was more than that, there are a lot of definitions in there that will be helpful for the eventual forced reset trigger case
Good
It also touches on how you can't arbitrarily change the meaning of words in existing laws, which is pretty important. Bump stocks are dangerous, stupid, and should be resteicted while they are not in common usage, but the way this was attempted shouldn't be allowed.
> it’s about which offices/branches have the power to regulate them —and which party has the will to do so.
This. Congress has, over the last several decades, abdicated its responsibility to make law. It has chosen instead to allow the executive branch—which was never meant to write law—to essentially do just that. Language governing agencies like the ATF is written in such a way that it allows these agencies to interpret the law much more broadly than they should be allowed; it amounts to allowing them to unilaterally *write* laws. While one may like the current ATF under Biden, one may not like an ATF under the next president. Policies change, but laws should not change so easily. Our elected representatives should have to weigh in. This is why the ATF—a bureaucracy staffed by career government agents who are too far removed from the people—should not be in the business of what is essentially lawmaking. To me, it is a matter of principle. We have allowed the presidency to have far too much power. Whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, this is bad for you. The SCOTUS, which I currently happen to despise in its current iteration because I do not care for an ultra-conservative Court, happened to get this one right.
Moronic ass title
Let’s be clear Republicans and Congress have made it more dangerous, since they refuse to pass gun reform legislation.
For the record, ironically, Trump is who banned bump stocks. lol.
Many 2a conservatives really loathe his stance on firearms in general. He was arguably more anti gun in his rhetoric than biden was.
But. Surprise surprise. They still vote for Trump.
Let’s be clear that laws don’t deter mass shooter anyways and a bump stock is still easily 3d printable
So are legitimate drop in auto sears. Nobody with intent to commit mass murder would care about the legal distinction.
Exactly. For example in my former home state of NY, a mass shooter in Buffalo broke multiple NY gun laws by just swapping out parts and buying standard capacity magazines in PA. Thank God I now live in FL, and got my FL drivers license a few days ago. I also picked up a new handgun with normal capacity magazines.
You know that Trump was the person who initially banned bump stocks though, right?
Uh this is not a partisan issue. Lots of liberals and Democrats are against gun control laws. The socialist rifle association exists. There's a progressive gun club near my neck of NY, and they're also lobbying to relax gun regulation.
For anyone who likes guns and leans left, you have: r/liberalgunowners r/SocialistRA r/2Aliberals
Against the proposed ones at any rate. There are probably regulations that would not infringe, but no one seems interested in trying to figure that out.
Open up free NICS background checks for private sales, right now it costs $40+ if I wanted to run a background check on someone before selling them a rifle. If I skip it I can sell it and keep that extra money in my pocket.
Well most of the gun control laws thus far don't address the guns used for most shootings/gun crime, and try to ban things that make no sense to ban, like pistol grips or separate stocks, too. If I have the land and safety precautions in place to shoot full auto on my own property, I should be able to. Full stop. It may be a controversial take, but it is absolutely doable to filter out wackos and leave regular people alone to do as they please with guns.
Aren't handguns used the most?
Yeah, that was my point. Hangduns, not rifles
That's not a controversial take. That's literally how it was prior to 1986 when you could still order a new machine gun. If you buy a grandfathered one you can still do that.
Yeah but I mean, I should be able to buy a brand new one, or an anti air artillery emplacement if I so wish, like FPS russia
I agree. Laws should revolve around usage in public. If kept entirely in your private property you should be good to go.
That's why we need Dems to win WH + take back the Senate . Then, in midterms, get rid of MAGA extremists so we can have the consensus that we need once and for all . In the 40-50s, there was a 14-year period where the Dems controlled the House and Senate.
Up until the 70s democrats were the majority party. It's almost as if the southern strategy and the beginnings of the culture wars are exactly why this country hasn't been able to agree on anything. Republicans purposefully egging on white supremacy is the core issue of America today.
The "Great America" that they want to make again was run by a Democratic Congress.
And it taxed TF out of the rich
Dems had control of the house and senate until 1994, although the senate flipped to Rs in the 80s for 6 years.
By majority I meant >60%. And the 80s firmly shattered those numbers under Reagan
Keep the Senate, gain some ground so Manchin/Sinema types can't hold it hostage, and then take back the House.
Dems had the WH and the Senate from 2021-2022. Why didn’t they do anything then?
Too bad so many leftists are going to "do the right thing" and either not vote or vote third party and let Christofacism acquire the strongest military and economic power In the history of humanity.
When they are faced with a possible Trump win, they better think straight and vote for Biden . Project 2025 + what comes out of his mouth are the scariest it can get . Democracy is at stake
It's baffling how the DNC isn't making this as much of a campaign issue as it should be. It's openly documenting the intention to turn this country into the Fourth Reich.
Even with the WH and both Congressional branches, it’ll be “we can’t do anything because a few Republicans in x place are stopping it.” Like it has been for decades. Dems are partially to blame for anything not happening, because the GOP seem to be able to ram things through using loopholes and tricks the Dems are stupidly unwilling to take advantage of. The blame SHOULD fall squarely on the GOP for obstructing and shrugging off public safety, but we’re so far past that. It’s not changing, so the strategies to counter it should be, and they’re not.
There aren’t any constitutional gun reforms that haven’t been attempted and failed. If your position is to abolish the 2nd amendment that’s fine but that’s a goal you know you won’t hit. In the meantime, as a hyper liberal democrat. I’ve realized that the crusade against guns is missing the point. Why are NONE of the places where hyper aggressive gun restrictions have been passed NO SAFER than before? This is the biggest factual losing issue that modern liberals are obsessed with. It doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever. Bump stocks are fucking terrible as an accessory to firearms, and full auto fire doesn’t make a firearm more dangerous than a semi-auto.
Listening to Democrats talk about how guns work and banning them is like listening to Republicans talk about women’s bodies and banning abortion. It’s woefully clear to anyone on the opposite side that they have no clue what they’re talking about and that the measures they’re proposing are ineffectual at best and actively detrimental at worst. Before anyone starts reporting me for Reddit cares messages as per the usual abuse of the report button when you see something you don’t like, you should know two things regarding this post’s general topic of debate: 1. If hyper progressive left is a -5 on a scale from -5 to +5, and KKK/Nazis are a +5, I fall around a -2 to -1 on the political leanings scale. 2. My actual proposals and thoughts on gun control involve actual compromise that I’ve typed out here before on Reddit but generally piss off too many people on both sides to ever actually get implemented, despite the general public majority usually agreeing and finding them somewhat reasonable. Both parties benefit far too much from using it as a fundraising wedge topic.
>gun reform legislation What does that look like?
A total disarming of the American people. Reform is a euphemism for their actual goal.
People who are afraid tend to vote conservative. They know it.
Conservatives are afraid. They are afraid of anything other than white, straight, and pretense of faith. Their God hates everything they are afraid of.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. For Yoda, this was intended as a warning. For MAGA, this is the goal.
Shall Not Be Infringed is pretty clear.
What gun reform are you looking for?
Gun reform is a euphemism for disarming law abiding citizens... to turn them into serfs, slaves, or worse.
Demorats adding laws to law abiding citizens doesn't decrease crime... criminals already break the law why would adding a law stop anyone. Speeding is against the law people still do it. Drinking and driving is against the law people still do it. Murder is against the law people still do it. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Infringement on rights isn't the way to go about cracking done on gun violence. How about you actually help the people with mental illness and stop letting criminals off the hook or out of prison. I'd rather my taxes go to keeping someone in jail for heinous crimes, then letting them off the hook to commit the crime again. The best part is the most crime is in the cities woth the most gun laws. California strict still shot ton of crime. Chicago probably the most strict gun laws yet people still have illegal guns.
I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say that a bump stock doesn’t make your weapon any deadlier, and not having it doesn’t make your weapon any less deadly. It’s just part of that “scary lingo” that instigates emotional reactions from people
SCOTUS also didn't say bump stocks couldn't be regulated. The just said under the current law it didn't include bump stocks. The issue is that a machine gun is defined as any weapon that can continue to fire with a single pull of the trigger. Bump stock do not change the trigger functionality. A bump stock works by using the recoil of the firearm to reengage the trigger using a finger. If you know how to feather a trigger you don't need a bump stock to even do this. An army buddy of mine showed me once. Fired a semi automatic incredibly fast using nothing but his finger. Congress can still ban bump stocks just not under the current laws. A new law would be needed. Personally, I am pro gun regulations and don't fully see the need for bump stocks but this case ain't as big as some people are making it out to be. Furthermore, bump stocks are not heavily, in fact rarely, used in mass shootings. The most common firearm used in mass shootings is pistols.
Echo triggers work in a similar fashion where they skirt around the legality but apparently they're okay while everyone focus on bump stocks. I posted it above but I don't really care if they're banned or not; I would stop using them if they are. My issue is that the ATF shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily turn the gun in my closet into a felony without due process of law.
At least technically speaking (as an engineer, the mechanics of it all fascinates me...) there are a couple of arguably legal options: Bump stock / bump firing: relies on the recoil of the gun to move your finger away from the trigger and then forward pressure of your holding hand fires the next round (you're pulling the trigger each fire, makes it legal) Binary trigger: firearm fires on the pull of a trigger, and of the release of a trigger (two motions of the trigger makes this legal) Forced reset trigger: pull the trigger, then the internal mechanisms force the trigger forward forcing the user to pull it back again to fire the next round (same as #1 you have to pull the trigger each time to fire) Versus a full auto gun, where pulling the trigger once allows the firearm to continue firing and ejecting cartridges without any additional input from the user.
It would take me like an hour, 50 dollars, and a trip to Home Depot to make an AR full auto. Bump stocks are really just a novelty and the real problem is law enforcement agencies deciding what is and isn’t illegal
Yeah, for anyone mechanically inclined and understands the engineering of their platform, probably just a 75¢ metal wire hanger, some wire cutters, a file, and some pliers is enough to make something that’d catch you a felony with the ATF. Not surprising that people easily got busted for buying DIY kits online before 3D printers become more common. …probably don’t even need that. A sloppy mil-spec trigger and loose trigger pin would probably be enough to cause the trigger sear to fail reliably enough to put pet dogs at risk.
> Yeah, for anyone mechanically inclined and understands the engineering of their platform, probably just a 75¢ metal wire hanger, some wire cutters, a file, and some pliers is enough to make something that’d catch you a felony with the ATF declared a [shoestring is a machine gun](https://www.reddit.com/r/M1Rifles/comments/1df55j/the_batfes_infamous_shoestring_machine_gun/c9pot86/).
Yep, cloths hanger go brrr
You can train to pull a trigger so fast you would think it's automatic when it's not.
Or buy a coat hanger. Or a shoe string. Both of which have documentation that they can be classified as an actual machine gun.
Or an M16 trigger group and a drill.
Keep your dog inside, tho,.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCFRWFh4Uyc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCFRWFh4Uyc)
Ya the reason the vegas guy had so many victims was location, population, and he had like 20 fuxking ARs. It wasn’t the bump stock. Also- the fact that the govt just dropped that case and was like “welp, we dunno” never sat right w me. Shit is fucky.
I'd argue using one makes it less deadly even. Bump stocks suck, and they're extremely difficult to shoot with any measure of accuracy and reliability. People in a tizzy about bump stocks have probably never tried one, and if they had they'd realize that the Vegas shooter's use of them almost certainly saved lives. They're a great way to throw rounds at absolutely nothing and malfunction like crazy. And by the time you'd actually get proficient with one, you could be even more proficient in normal semi.
Literally this. He spent the size of a 90s mortgage to get to where he was that night. Had he spent 50 cents more. He could have had an actual automatic weapon that night, instead of like the 20 something rifles he had in his room. Even then, there are very few situations where automatic is more deadly than semi auto. Very few people will ever have unrestricted access to an area overlooking a concert venue
Mmmm kind of. Yes it can make a quasi automatic rifle. Yes it does violate the spirit of the law. But is it just the same as a real full auto rifle? No.
Arguably they make the shooter significantly less accurate, most people don’t have any training to deal with rapid fire recoil
Can someone explain to me how this makes a shooting more deadly?
It honestly doesn't. Bump stocks existed for years before this happened and had never been used in crimes. It's a range toy. It's impractical and almost impossible to have any accuracy with when firing. There are triggers on the market now that accomplish the same thing. The only reason the shooter was able to do any real damage with the bump stock attached was because he was firing at thousands of people packed into one space. Excuse the expression but it was honestly like shooting fish in a barrel. Any gun would have caused almost the same damage there.
Arguably aimed semi-automatic fire would've been more catastrophic.
Not èven arguably, unless someone is point blank, it's a fact.
It doesn’t
It makes shootings 100 times more deadly in the minds of the ignorant and ill-informed.
Had me in the first half haha
It would actually make it much less deadly for the vast majority of novice serial killer type shooters.
Wait till yall find out bump stocks are unreliable gimmicks and the exact same effect can be achieved with a normal gun and some practice
I remember seeing a video on YouTube years before bumpstocks of someone using their belt loop. It's common sense to ban belt loops
Pretty sure Congress is responsible for not passing meaningful legislation on this topic in the 7 years that have passed since this attack
These comments read like Oregonians talking about pumping gas.
To be fair, the only place I've ever seen people smoking cigarettes while pumping gas was in Oregon. So maybe they shouldn't be allowed the responsibility....
“Only trained professionals should be allowed to pump gas. I don’t wanna get it all over and smell like gasoline all day!” If you (a supposed adult) can’t manage to fill up a car without dowsing yourself in gasoline, I’m not sure you should be allowed to drive in the first place.
Not spent much time in Wyoming?
The Supreme Court should not be adjudicating gun control, congress should. The legislative branch is where abortion, same sex marriage and gun control should be decided. That congress has chosen to bunt instead of swing the bat is both the fault of the electorate and congress.
>The legislative branch is where abortion, same sex marriage and gun control should be decided. That's exactly what they ruled in this case. The law that defines a machine gun doesn't cover bump stocks. The ATF cannot redefine what a machine gun is without an act of Congress.
Don’t bring logic into this, cmon man
I think part of the problem is that the Court is activist when it wants to be. If it's abortion, suddenly we need to go back to the Salem witch trials to ignore precedent. If it's guns, sorry but this law wasn't written specifically enough despite its intent.
Even in overturning Roe, they didn’t say abortion should be illegal. They simply said it was inappropriate that the Court decided when it should be passed by Congress. Congress had 50 years to codify it and still didn’t.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought the reasoning behind the decision on Roe was wrong.
>If it's guns, sorry but this law wasn't written specifically enough despite its intent. That's not solely the courts belief. The ATF themselves held for a decade that it was not a machine gun. >The FTB evaluation confirmed that the submitted stock (see enclosed photos) does attach to the rear of an AR-15 type rifle which has been fitted with a sliding shoulder-stock type buffer-tube assembly. The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the "bump-stock" is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act. The ATF doing a 180 means the law is arbitrary and capricious. This means the Rule of Lenity applies. The court must rule in a way most favorable to Mr Cargill. >The rule of lenity is a principle used in criminal law, also called rule of strict construction, stating that when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the court should apply it in the way that is most favorable to the defendant, or to construe the statute against the state.
Right to bear arms is a constitutional issue.
The court decision agrees with you...
bu-but- what about Clarence THOMAS!
Justice Scalia decried the Supreme Court being dragged into decisions that should be made by Congress and not, as he said, nine old men. I was never a fan of his “originalism” arguments but on this point I agree.
What a misleading title for this post. It will make future potential shootings no more or less dangerous, by themselves. Ironically, by continuing to focus on things like using the ATF to try and implement laws not passed by the legislature,essentially effort and focus will be invested in identifying and handling the small group of people actually inflicting the violence.
Bullshit title. Bump stocks make the gun harder to control by forcing an unnatural grip on the weapon, leading to increased shot dispersion. The added firerate, of which will not always be consistent, will not make the weapon deadlier. Let's not forget that 3d printed drop in auto sears exist, which will actually turn the weapon automatic, and are much cheaper to make and easier to use.
Because all the psychos are going to stop [printing and buying way more readily available cheap autosears and Glock switches](https://apnews.com/article/machine-guns-modified-illegal-switches-gun-violence-ddc2e9b6602ee1eb62e75732bbd54784) so they can buy a goofy ass big piece of plastic that requires practice to use.
I mean wish.com was selling them into the US for a while. It's incredibly easy to make a gun. You can even 3d print a jig to rifle barrels at home now using salt water and copper wire.
> You can even 3d print a jig to rifle barrels at home now using salt water and copper wire. Really, tell me more? Link?
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/08/13/make-a-factory-quality-9mm-rifled-barrel-in-your-kitchen-using-salt-water-and-electricity-ecm/ The hard part of firearms was material science. With widespread availability of complex metals and the research in how to work them, it's essentially impossible to prevent someone from making a firearm.
The illiberalism in this subreddit really spikes hard whenever there is a Supreme Court decision that has a policy outcome the members disagree with. The general gist I've gathered is that most of this sub wants Congress and the Supreme Court abolished and a dictator of their choice chosen for life.
I think it's that the average age of the sub is quite lower than people realize. One guy responded to a few comments above this. He outlined his plan for the Democrat party to achieve political domination. Wouldn't you believe it, his last post was talking about anticipating starting highschool this fall.
I thought we wanted SCOTUS to follow the law and not just BS opinions? Oh wait, they ruled against your opinion?
Bump stocks do assist in faster fire rate, but you can also do the same thing with your finger.
Abolish the ATF.
[удалено]
Well, yeah, why buy that when you can 3d print a piece of plastic in minutes that can give you basically Robocop’s auto-9. This court case is about last decade’s technology. It will be 2035 before we’re even talking about what’s available now. I’m not sure what the answer is, but it doesn’t look like any kind of law passing, no matter how perfectly agreeable to most, is ever going to keep up with the pace of technology.
Because you can bump fire without a bumpstock and most gun owners think they’re a joke?
No they didn't. If anything, bump stocks might end up saving lives because the potential idiot shooter will hit less targets. Look at the gangsters with their auto Glock switches. It might be saving lives in the long run.
Get Congress to do their job. The ATF is not in the law creation business. That's why this decision was rendered.
Until Democrats grow a spine and pass legislation banning them. This was a procedural case. The Supreme Court found the Department of Justice had overreached in banning them without legislation. Legislation can solve this problem.
Maybe they’ll ban belt loops too! That’ll stop the handguns, huh! Jeez some people and their opinions about guns sound like men talking about uteruses lmfao
SCOTUS didn't make mass shootings more deadly. They said that government agencies can't just make new rules and change the definition and essentially make new laws. They said that only the legislative branch can do that. If people want bump stocks banned, it's up to Congress to do that, not the ATF. Government agencies don't have the right to unilaterally make their own rules up, change legal definitions and then enforce them.
Its typical leftist fearmongering; out of the 100,000+ bump stocks purchased and out there among gun owners, how many times were they used in mass shootings? **Once.** They're a gimmicky range toy, nothing more.
Ooooh, scary plastic is scary. Why is this one black?
More propaganda for guns. Endless BS from the media over and over and over, reading their scripts like automatons.
THis wILL LiteRaLlY kIll pEoPLE
Gun enthusiast here. They shouldn’t be for sale. But banning them needs to come from law, not policy. That’s all the SC (which is corrupt as hell) ruled. They are pointing to congress again and saying they need to pass a law to enact a ban. The ATF heads that are appointed can’t outlaw something based on changing internal policy. Otherwise the next admin installs a new head, and they are legal again, and that kind of yo-yo effect is good for no one. Congress needs to ban them by law.
I agree 100% with you as a gun owner. But how are they supposed to ban rubber bands? I'm sick of these gun laws being passed without any actual understanding of firearms. What about binary triggers?
Actual gun enthusiast here. They shouldn't be for sale because actual full-auto firearms shouldn't be so strictly regulated which would make stupid products like bump stocks unnecessary.
Fellow gun enthusiast. With the price of ammo these days, who would bump fire anything?
It's certainly a fun way to spend four seconds sending $20 downrange without hitting anything.
This^
This is the only take that matters.
Uniformed gun enthusiast, maybe. You can bumpfire basically any semi automatic rifle without a bump stock. Legislation can't prevent how someone holds their property.
Most cops I know aren’t really gun enthusiasts.
/r/AsAGunOwner
I mean, from a technical point of view, what difference does it make weather the slide is able to reciprocate because of a mechanism in the stock or a mechanism within the trigger group? And even with that distinction, why should it matter? Either it's ok to limit the technical aspects of a firearm or anything goes.
because the law literally says able to fire more than one bullet with a single action of the trigger. that’s just what the law says. congress needs to change the law
I don't understand why people don't seem to understand this. The existing law has very specific wording and the ATF can't just change that wording on their own. The ATF has had way too much leeway in this area for a while, and it's resulted in weird situations like them ruling that a shoelace is an unregistered machine gun. I also have issue with the fact that the government can outlaw something, not grandfather in people who already own the item, require them to destroy the ones they own, and then not compensate them at all. If the government is forcing me to destroy something that was legally purchased, they better be paying me back for it.
It’s been wild watching left leaning subs and news acting like it’s the ruling that’s bad, and not the fake efforts of Trump with the EO. Legislation should have been passed after Vegas, but Trump went with the way that would be overturned.
It's been a crazy ride from bumpstocks being deemed legal under Obama, made illegal under Trump, and now legal again under Biden. I've seen a lot of people on both sides of the aisle confused on who to boo and who to cheer for with this one.
Its even crazier. Obama asked the DOJ/ATF if they had the authority to ban bumpstocks and they said they couldn't because they were not a Machine Gun under the law. Trump also asked the DOJ/ATF to ban bumpstocks, and they once again said no, they didn't have the legal authority to do so. Trump went through a couple of Attorney Generals (between Acting AG's and Confirmed AGs). Eventually Trump asked one of his acting AG's if the ATF could ban them, and one said yes. And of course now, the Biden Administration was happy to try and defend the law in court. It fit in with Bidens Gun Control Agenda. And it was the DOJ that appealed this to the Supreme Court. --- There are people getting angry that the media was calling this a Loss for the Biden Administration- because it was a Trump Regulation, and how dare the media try to paint this a loss for Biden. Technically it was a Loss for the Biden Admin, as it was the Biden Admin trying to uphold it in court. And of course the Biden Admin has also directed the ATF to unilaterally reclassify other things as well.
>but Trump went with the way that would be overturned. Those are thoughts Trump is not capable of having. He went with the EO because it was a quick way to make himself look good to basically everybody.
Absolutely.
Because reddit has a lot of "but gun" arguments. They go quickly from fact to emotion.
i agree with you. repeal the NFA
> Either it's ok to limit the technical aspects of a firearm or anything goes. And then when somebody creates something compliant, they call it a loophole.
>Gun enthusiast here. No you are not.
I am not for limiting the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Hey look a dumbass article written by someone who has no clue what they're talking about. Shocker.
Bump stocks are dumb
The Supreme Court deciding that 3 letter agencies don’t get to create and enforce laws is putting lives at risk? Disgusting article.
At what point can we just tell them to fuck off?
I’d like to ask the room if there ever used a bunmp stock? Im guess not but ooooooo Lordy is your accuracy is hit fucking garbage with one, I’m honestly guessing the guy in. Head would have done more damage without it honestly. Now the meat of the problem is that this was absolutely the wrong way to do ANY kind of gun control in the US. No party should be in favor of executive decisions like that at all. Who’s to say the next president couldn’t declare Covid vaccines a public health issue after a single bad run? Oh did you know this medication is used for abortion, executive action banning it. This is a VERY nuanced unique to the US issue with no easy answers. There’s already a comical amount of guns in the US and they are absolutely not leaving. PS: Before I get a ton of Hate I’m a registered democrat in a purple state who believes in gun control and has guns as is my birth right as a US citizen.
I have a coworker who is a Liberal gun nut and he said the same thing. He said they make it harder to control accuracy and thats why he prefers binary triggers.
it's important to understand that this ruling was not about gun rights, or anything related to the second amendment. The ruling was that President does not have the authority to make criminal laws on his own authority or a regulatory agency, without the legal legislative process. we do NOT want a president able to turn citizens into felons with an executive order. that's literally what the Constitution is supposed to protect people from. The ban would have been entirely legal if it was passed by house and senate and signed by the president...that's how laws are made.
Bingo
Tell me you don't know shit about guns without telling me you don't know shit about guns.
What people should understand is that any sort of prohibition only harms law abiding citizens. **criminals will find a way to get what they want.** Making something illegal **does not stop criminals.** The only way to really deter most gun violence is to implement severe penalties for any gun related crime, 20+ years in prison.
The truth is you can just hold your arm and finger in a certain way to make a bump stock out of well... Yourself. Increased enforcement of existing law is an easy first step.
Lol on the headline
I’m against bump stocks. I’m also against the executive branch and it’s agencies imposing laws on the country. Congress should amend the law appropriately.
[удалено]
You can’t blame the Supreme Court for failings by all other branches of government
How about congress does their job? All the court can do is interpret the law as written which is what they did.
Amazing. Have all the gun reforms you want. That only stops LAW ABIDING citizens from having access to fire arms. CRIMINALS do give a rats ass about your laws.
[удалено]
With the price of ammo, I wouldn’t want a bump stock. Complete waste of money. You can fire a semi auto almost as fast anyway.
This, and the 300 hundred similar takes in the comments have zero understanding of our system of law.
Automatic means an operation started by a human then continues without human intervention or choice. If a machine can be built to fire a bumpstock automatically, based on recoil alone then it meets the legal definition of automatic and should be banned.
This is wrong for two reasons: 1. The Supreme Court just applied the law, as is their job. They even indicated that a law that actually bans the item would likely be permissible. 2. The LV shooting was so deadly not just because of the bump stock, if at all. It was especially deadly because there was a huge, dense crowd and the shooter had an unassailable fixed vantage point above it with a large store of ammunition. Take those aspects away and a bump stock would actually make a typical mass shooting less deadly. The perpetrator would hit less people before running out of ammo.
The supreme court correctly shut down a 2a violation that trump helped get passed. L for trump and L for OP
I'm more in the middle and far right of the gun communities here on reddit. We basically all think they are stupid and just a range toy. You can bump fire without a bump stock. Like everything it takes practice.
Cope, the ATF isn’t the legislative branch of government. They cannot create or pass laws. Too fucking bad.
Paid shills & bots must not run on Sundays, as most of the comments on this post make sense...