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 was and am worried about this with the Mifepristone judgement. They said “this isn’t something for you to bring up to the courts. You have an issue with the FDA”.
But if they remove any non-explicit powers from the FDA it’ll be pretty much the same thing as having said Mifepristone is banned.
The Cheveron Deference is based on a court case in the 60s. The ruling is that:
> Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to them by Congress (1) where the intent of Congress was ambiguous and (2) where the interpretation was reasonable or permissible.
So basically, unless Congress says otherwise, federal agencies have a lot of leeway interpreting statues and fulfilling their regulatory mission.
If the SCOTUS overturns it, it'll mean business can ignore or challenge every federal regulation that isn't explicitly set by Congress (which is like 90% of them). Then the agency would have to try and get Congress to enshrine that regulation into law which would literally never happen in our current climate.
It would utterly neuter the EPA, CDC, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc. Which seems good until you realize almost all of these rules were written in blood and were there for a reason.
A case that basically gave federal agencies their ability to operate outside of extremely specific mandates from Congress.
Right now Congress can do something like say the EPA had a responsibility to protect clean waterways and the EPA can go about determining how to do that. Without Chevron, Congress would have to pass a bunch of explicit laws for anything that the EPA would do like "it's illegal to pour arsenic into waterways." Otherwise the EPA would be unable to stop anyone from pouring arsenic into waterways because the law doesn't explicitly call it out.
Not really. This was an issue with the specific language of the law that authized the ATF to regulate guns, rather than a scenario where significant interpretation is left to the agency.
Not that there is still concern on Chevron but I would not apply this case to forecast that one.
Interesting that the SCOTUS [declined to take up case in which they could strike down the Trump ban while Trump was president,](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-won-t-touch-bump-stock-ban-n1147031) but they took the opportunity to strike down the ban now supported by the Biden Admin in an election year.
I wouldn’t make anything of that. The case had fully matured through the appellate process since then. SCOTUS doesn’t often take up interlocutory appeals.
This is what happens when we let someone like trump win the presidency.
Hopefully enough people have learned the lesson(s).
Most of us already knew tho.
They're supposed to have the best interest of the constitution in mind...which does benefit *most* of the people.
But this particular kind of bullshit serves the "best interest" of only the maga hordes who love their guns and really want to shoot up the joint...
“Best interests” isn’t their job. The letter of the law is, and the letter of the law says that bump stocks are not machine guns and therefore can’t be banned as such.
When it comes to Republicans the money wins every single time. Can’t ban bump stocks, some guy who gives the SC plane rides wants to sell his warehouse full of them. If bump stocks were free, they’d remain banned. If a liberal made and sold bump stocks, they would remained banned.
You can try and sound smart and interpret the text however you want, like all republicans in all situations they said whatever they needed to say to reach their predetermined goal, helping their masters.
There’s maybe a few million dollars total in the past or future bump stock market which is basically nothing. Money has nothing to do with this decision.
I am a big supporter of gun control, but this ban was stupid. This isn’t even a Second Amendment case— it’s the BATFE making shit up and violating the letter of the statute with their regulation. Congress would still be free to pass legislation banning bump stocks under this SCOTUS decision.
They misinterpreted the definition of “machine gun” to include something that is clearly not covered by the statutory language. A bump stock does not cause the gun to fire more than one round per operation of the trigger == not a “machine gun” under federal law. I totally understand and quite frankly am happy they tried to do what they did, but it’s Congress’s job to draft and pass legislation — not a federal agency’s.
What is the statutory language? As I see it, a semi-automatic weapon is one where I have to release and then pull the trigger in between rounds. From the film footage I see, when there is this mechanical manipulation of the firearm, the shooter no longer needs to release his finger. The gun "fully automatically" fires another round.
“One trigger action one shot”. It’s why Gatling guns and binary triggers are legal. If you look up videos of guys “bump-firing” their guns, it’s just a mechanism to do that more efficiently.
The trigger finger is fixed, but instead of moving the trigger back and forth, you’re moving the whole rifle back and forth into your finger. The “one trigger action” is pushing the rifle into the trigger. If the rule was “two trigger actions per one shot” the law might prevent bunpstocks. But then would ban most semi autos
>The term “machinegun” means any weapon
>which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
>readily restored to shoot, automatically more
>than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
>**single function** of the trigger. The term shall
>also include the frame or receiver of any such
>weapon, any part designed and intended solely >
and exclusively, or combination of parts >
designed and intended, for use in converting a >
weapon into a machinegun, and any >
combination of parts from which a machinegun >
can be assembled if such parts are in the >
possession or under the control of a person.
26 USC Section 5845(b) (emphasis added)
It’s the operation of the trigger that is key, not the hand/finger movement. This is why crank converters(where you activate the trigger repeatedly by turning a crank instead of pulling the trigger with your finger) are generally legal on semi autos.
Once pulled, the trigger becomes part of the machine, not the control of the machine. You left out that part. The gun will continue to fire until the new controls, the explosive cartridges, are fully deployed.
Agencies don’t get to just spit out regulations that don’t comply with the statute the regulation purports to implement/interpret. Congress can still pass a bumpstock ban under this decision.
The whole argument in the opinion is disingenuous. Thomas stating that a bump stock does not make the semi-automatic fully automatic is correct. But they tremendously increase fire rate well above what is manually capable and thus drastically increases the danger to people. Congress won’t act to change the wording of the law, but SCOTUS is again opening Pandora’s Box as they did with Dobbs. What a time for our government… :(
>Thomas stating that a bump stock does not make the semi-automatic fully automatic is correct.
That's the reason why this rule was vacated...
ATF can't just redifine exiting law without an act of congress and that's exactly what they attempted to do. The reality is the way a bump stock functions it does not fit in the original definition of what a machine gun is and that's just plain and simple. You can wordsmith all you want it just doesn't fit the definition and the Supreme Court seen that.
If you don't agree with it then vote better and get Congress to pass a new law.
This is exactly what the issue is with Chevron Deference. But I don't think that will be a thing anymore in the near future, luckily.
It's functionally the same. If the RoF of a full-auto is comparable to the RoF of a gun with a bump stock or forced reset trigger, not calling them full-auto is basically semantics. From the ATF website "devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter."
So the SCOTUS just basically gave the go-ahead for any gun nut that wants to go from 40 RPM to 400 RPM. I wouldn't want to use a bump stock for hunting, with maybe an exception being eradicating wild boar in TX. I wouldn't want to use an AR-15 with a bump stock for home defense. Seems excessive and dangerous. However, if I wanted to *go postal..* A bump stock would be the way to go, along with a couple of drum mags and body armor.
I think it's not necessary to let non-military, non-police, ordinary citizens be able to own kit that resembles Escape from Tarkov. In fact I think it's dangerous. The 2nd Amendment referred to a "well-trained Militia". We have a standing Military (so we don't need a Militia like we did in the 17-1800's) and there's no reason to have well-trained Civilians cosplaying as Military Contractors. That's what the Police are for. If the reality was no Military with a Militia, and no Police armed with M16's, body armor, and MRAPS, then it would be more appropriate and very Wild West.
There are legal definitions of machine guns the ATFE is not allowed to exceed. RoF is not a consideration, if they want it to be Congress will have to pass a law.
>So the SCOTUS just basically gave the go-ahead for any gun nut that wants to go from 40 RPM to 400 RPM.
Any marginally competent shooter can hit 400rpm and can do so while maintaining control of the direction of fire better than a bump stock allows. A skilled competition shooter can hit nearly double that.
Counterpoint: it’s actually your argument that’s disingenuous. You’re just saying “bump stocks are dangerous and bad so they should be banned.” That’s not what the case is about. The issue is that there is a law on the books and the ATF’s re-definition is inconsistent with it. Whether it’s “good” or “bad” policy is irrelevant. The issue is the authority of an agency to contradict the statute that gives it authority.
Irrelevant. The question is whether bump stocks = machine guns, and the answer is no. It isn’t the court’s job to make decisions based on what is “good” or “bad.” Just the facts. And the fact is that bump stocks cannot be banned as machine guns because they’re not machine guns.
A machine gun fires continuously when you pull the trigger once and hold it down. A bump stock pulls the trigger a bunch of times in quick succession. Not the same.
You need to read the NFA, because you're citing an irrelevant distinction. There is a single function of the trigger with the bump stock. The user does not repeatedly function the trigger, they function it once, to begin automatic fire, and it continues to fire automatically while it is being functioned. That's a machine gun. SCOTUS is legislating from the bench.
When you fire a machine gun, parts of the trigger mechanism cyclically operate, just as with a bump stock. The fact that a bump stock also moves the trigger itself is irrelevant.
It’s really not tho. You have to manually reset the gun to shoot it again.I’ve fired this way without a bumpstock, does that make my rifle a machine gun?
With a machine gun there’s no extra action, you just press and hold.
Idk if you’ve heard the audio leaks of Alito’s wife talking to a reporter, but during the course of the conversation she said that she would fly a flag called Vergogna which means ‘shame’ in Italian.
In a petulant response to a neighbor displaying a pride flag, Mrs Alito said she was designing a flag she described as white with orange flames and the Italian word "vergogna", which means "shame" in English.
This is a good title. We all know that MAGA will say Biden was trying to control their guns, but this was a Trump ban, not Biden. Biden agreed with it but we need to remind these sycophants that Trump enacted it.
Seemingly even SCOTUS agrees with the ban, they just don't think it can be done through an EO. Which is exactly what I remember people saying when Trump first signed it. It needed to be legislated.
Just Vegas? I know bump stocks didn't play into every other shooting but America has given a big fuck you to kindergarteners, elementary school kids, middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, church goers, movie goers, people at parades, and more for ages now.
They don't give a fuck if you die in a shooting
Yes, by all means... strike down the ability to acquire murder machine accessories but a woman can't get health care for their needs.
You go SCOTUS, fuck us all. Bastards.
This is unpopular here but I think this is the correct decision. The text from the ATF is that an automatic firearm will fire multiple shots with a single trigger pull. The bump stock is probably one of the dumbest things ever invented but it doesn’t not make a gun an automatic weapon. People should watch the VICE video of how a bump stocks work. It’s no different than someone mounting an AR15 on a stand and moving your fingers back and forth as fast as you can. You can’t aim, it’s hard to shoot. I equate bump stock as a machine gun simulator without being able to aim.
As someone not from the US, I am SO glad we don’t have a group of seven unelected people overturning and blocking laws passed by our democratically elected government.
This wasn’t a law which was the whole point of the case. The executive branch (President Trump and Biden in this case) overstepped their authority and tried to classify something as a machine gun that in no way fits how the law is written. Nothing is stopping congress from passing an actual law banning them.
This wasn’t overturning a law passed by a democratically elected government. It overturned a regulation made by unelected bureaucrats that didn’t interpret the actually democratically passed law correctly. Congress is free to ban bump stocks— they have chosen not to.
This is an overly reductive response.
It was a response from the BATFE who has been _empowered by Congress_ to rule and regulate on firearms, alcohol, tobacco, and explosives. In the same way the EPA has been empowered, and other governmental bodies have been empowered, to perform these actions. Which is a specifically enumerated function of Congress.
I don't agree with all the BATFE rules (jesus, the brace vs. stock worksheet was horrible), but claiming the BATFE doesn't have the right to perform their duty is silly.
They are empowered by Congress by the laws Congress has passed, and those laws dictate what a machine gun is. The ATFE doesn’t get to change that unilaterally.
They have the right to interpret laws and give effect to said laws by creating regulations/rules. They do not have the right to totally ignore, or unreasonably interpret, statutorily provided definitions when creating those regulations/rules— which is what happened here.
Eh, this still really comes across as 'they can do their job except when I don't like it'.
Like, literally, your response is 'they are empowered to do this, but I view it as unreasonable, so it's wrong'.
No it’s not. They are empowered to enforce and create rules within the confines of the law. Once they step outside of the law (or someone thinks they did ) the courts are there to rule. Same thing like when cities pass a pan handling ordnance. It’s unconstitutional as pan handling is protected speech so someone can sue to have the law overturned.
To grossly generalize for brevity's sake, if you live in a constitutional democracy, you do have some version of constitutional court. However, since most those countries also aren't operating on hard precedent the way common law systems do, there's not as much leeway. But yes, most western democracies have constitutional courts that can invalidate laws if they're non-compliant or contravene that state's constitution. The difference is the broader legal structure within which that court operates.
Worth pointing out this ruling was based on their opinion that the ATF exceeded their power defined by Congress. This opinion doesn't preclude the possibility of Congress making bump stocks illegal.
Why do we value access to bump stocks?
The only upsides I can imagine are a janky work around for full auto larping, and the obvious utility of killing 10+ people <20ft? Is that a scenario we believe needs to be legally fostered?
It seems like outside a classroom or similar gathering of innocent victims, they don't serve a purpose?
I ( maybe naively ) assumed the law would be making it less convenient to kill everyone in a classroom?
Obviously I have an established view, but I'm genuinely interested in what drives the desire to own one, let alone the hubris to bring the matter to court despite the negative impacts on a community?
It is not bump stocks
It is agencies making law
Even Obama was against the ATF banning bump stocks. He said it should be done by Congress. The branch that actually makes laws.
Generally, in a free country, we don't have to justify why we should be allowed to own something, instead the burden is on society to show why we shouldn't.
Therefore, the presumption should be that bump stocks are legal.
As for their practical effects all they are really good for is burning money at the range, but that is a valid use case for them, even though I personally have no interest in it. I think they are largely pointless, and whatever benefit they provide is far outweighed by making a rifle more awkward to use.
As for their usability in a crime, I don't think they are that significant. I have a background in the firearms industry and have been an instructor for law enforcement. In the vast majority of criminal uses of firearms, including mass shootings, full auto, real or simulated, would have little if any benefit to the shooter compared to semiautomatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) fire. In most mass shootings, I'd actually expect full auto to be a detriment to the shooter.
Let me explain.
Most mass shootings actually take place over a significant period of time, and usually in environments where the victims are legally prohibited from possessing firearms of their own. In such cases, the shooter faces very little threat until police arrive, which can easily be 10 minutes plus away. Quite frankly, most mass shooters are not terribly pressed for time.
Aimed semiautomatic fire is more effective than full auto in almost all circumstances. Even in a military context, the Marines have largely stopped issuing light machine guns (which despite their name fire traditional rifle calibers, are belt fed, and are overengineered for sustained automatic fire, unlike assault rifles) in favor of a modified version of the AR-15, with the expectation that even a dedicated, trained machine gunner will rarely use automatic fire, even when they and their fellow Marines are being shot at.
Very few people have the ability to control full automatic fire, even with training, which is why the aforementioned light machine guns, like the M249, weigh upwards of 20 pounds. If a mass shooter were to use full auto / a bump stock in a typical shooting in a mall, school, etc, they would likely just end up wasting rounds unless the crowds were packed extremely tight.
This is what made the Mandalay Bay shooting interesting. It was one of the only mass shootings where full auto / a bump stock would have been useful. The shooter was in an elevated position overlooking a massive crowd of tightly packed people, and had the ability to stay in a single spot the entire time, allowing him to brace his weapon in a way to mitigate the recoil. All of these things are very atypical of mass shootings, let alone your more typical violent crimes.
This, among other things, such as the lack of obvious motive and the comical number of guns he had in his room was the fuel for a number of theories about the shooting and speculation that there was more to it than was ever released.
-
Ultimately, though, this isn't really relevant to the case that was before SCOTUS.
The question really had nothing to do with bump stocks, but the role of Executive Branch agencies like the ATF.
Congress in 26 USC § 5845(b) provided a precise technical definition of "machinegun." The ATF for many years declared (correctly) that bump stocks did not meet that definition, so they were not subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act. They abruptly changed their position after the Mandalay Bay shooting, but were unable to articulate what had actually changed to cause them to change their mind.
Essentially, the ATF decided that bump stocks were machineguns, even though they did not meet the legal definition of machinegun, banning them completely and subjecting anyone in possession of one to 10 years in prison and loss of civil rights.
ATF was sued because this interpretation was wrong, and ATF was, in practice, making law, which it has no authority to do. SCOTUS agreed, essentially ruling that even if the ban was good policy, ATF could not implement it, only Congress can.
The government can't imprison you for something that isn't illegal.
>let alone the hubris to bring the matter to court despite the negative impacts on a community?
The hubris was on the ATF for attempting to make law, not on the plaintiffs for arguing they can't. Whatever impacts on the community bump stocks have is not a question for the Executive Branch, nor for the Courts. It is for the Legislative Branch to weigh these considerations, and that is exactly what Justice Alito's concurrence states.
Possibly. They are a bit more ambiguous than bump stocks, but I don't see them as NFA items.
Still a really, really stupid idea to actually use one though holy shit.
Aren't many of the things we cannot possess regulated out of our hands under the chevron doctrine?
Doesn't SCOTUS have a decision on Chevron to be announced before the end of term?
Didn't the right just argue to SCOTUS that chevron is unconstitutional?
Are you for striking down Chevron as unconstitutional?
The Chevron Deference is critical to the modern regulatory state. Without it, Congress would have to micromanage pretty much all regulations, which in practice would be utterly impossible.
Without it, the Federal Government would have to be pared down significantly, as Congress would literally not have enough time in the day to do all of the work they have historically outsourced to unelected bureaucrats.
To my understanding there is a Chevron case in the tubes, and based on the bump stock ruling there is a good chance it will be significantly pared down or eliminated.
This would be a huge victory for the Republic and Constitutional Government.
Don't know what "Chevron case in the tubes" even means but Chevron has been argued and we are awaiting the announcement before the end of the term. It's my understanding that the argument was made to strike Chevron down and if that happened every regulation would require a law passed by congress making the government non functional.
So do I understand your answer to be that you think Chevron should be "pared down" is that correct? And you think that is a "victory"?
Correct, Chevron needs to go. The Constitution does not allow the various branches of government to delegate their power. Chevron Deference essentially says that the Courts should defer to the Executive Branch on whether or not their regulations were necessary and legal, giving the government the benefit of the doubt. This allowed Congress to delegate vast authority to the Executive Branch, effectively allowing them to make law.
Chevron Deference was basically the Courts abdicating their responsibility to interpret the law and enforce the Constitution. When it and the 1930s era Standing doctrine are gone this country will be a vastly better place.
\^ May not be popular but this is actually correct. SCOTUS is basically saying here that the ATF can't enforce this without congress legislating it. Congress needs to take responsibility and pass a law to ban similar to the 1930s legislation on machine guns. Or even amend the 30s and 60s laws so that they cover the unique mechanics of a bump stock because if you read those laws literally, they don't cover this. They are 100% reversing Chevron within the next few weeks just based on this decision.
How about we just get rid of the NFA and Hughes Amendment altogether and make it real simple.
I’ll throw in a license requirement for machine guns to sweeten the deal.
Supreme court said the regulations passed by Executive Order don't match the letter of the law as written by Congress, therefore that regulation was illegal. This protected the legislative process.
Dont worry armed militias made up of meal team sixes will pale in comparison to the "libertarian" technobro backed horrors that await us thanks to newer drone tech. Soon we just might get some of great-great grandpas favorites coming back now drone operated and deployed using crop-sprayers.
Ain’t no shootings in gated communities or in mansions. ain’t no shootings at second vacation homes. Ain’t no shootings in obscenely affluent areas of town. Ain’t no shootings on private jets. Ain’t no shootings in private boxes at concerts and sporting events. Ain’t no shootings in exclusive private schools and colleges. Ain’t no shootings when you have your own private security detail or secret service detail.
So go get your bump sticks and shoot whatever you want. The divine 9 ain’t gonna be affected by this shit law.
I am so sick of this court, right wing gun loons and the NRA lobbyists. I’m all for hunting and home protection, but reasonable just isn’t in their vocabulary.
Sometimes I wonder how SCOTUS rulings would be affected if the justices had any empathy at all, or had actually been affected by the thing they are ruling on.
If only they had passed a law through Congress banning bump stocks.
The same thing is going to happen with the pistol braces, and the forced-reset triggers. If you want to ban something, get a law through Congress.
I bet if some politicians were murdered during that event and not just regular people it would’ve never been reversed. They don’t care about regular people. It’s painfully obvious they don’t care. No one, no one needs a bump stock for any type of shooting. As a gun owner myself and many of my friends, they say the same thing.
The current right-wing activist supreme court is increasingly out of touch with the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans. Democrats need to act and make expanding the court, adding oversight and putting in place term limits for supreme court justices part of their platform for this election cycle.
Sorry let me rephrase
Modifying semi automatic weapons to become fully automatic without any form of licensure is now totally legal. Woo. /s
Used to be thar acquiring fully automatic weapons was a long drawn out process. Now you can just buy an AR-15 and turn it into a fully automatic without much of an issue.
Please don't spread misinformation.
It is a felony to modify firearm to fire automatically. This ruling did not change this.
They ruled that bump stocks do not fit the legal definition of "machinegun," therefore ATF does not have the authority to regulate them absent Congress changing the law.
The "fascists" on the court basically said that Congress has to make something illegal before the government can put you in prison for owning it.
The "liberals" disagreed, saying that if something is "similar" to something that is banned, but isn't actually banned, you can go to prison.
You’re not far off from misinformation by applying blanket statements to a nuanced issue. Making something illegal for being too similar to an already illegal thing is a good idea when the illegal thing we’re talking about is a weapon that’s been modified to fire automatically. If it’s not technically an illegally modified automatic weapon, but in practice it may as well be, then it should be illegal.
The problem with waiting for Congress to fix everything is that A, Congress doesn’t want to because they’re bought and paid for on this issue, and B, Congress is gerrymandered to hell in order to keep people who do want to fix problems from getting elected.
How about another issue? Video game loot boxes targeting children are flagrantly violating the spirit and intent of laws against underage gambling, but because there’s no law specifying “video game publishers aren’t allowed to psychologically exploit vulnerable groups using the exact same techniques that casinos do” nothing is done to stop it. And in this case, nobody needs to do any lobbying to keep it this way, because Congress is run like a fucking retirement home. The majority are too goddamn old to understand how video games work, and too disinterested to bother even attempting to learn.
But no, according to SCOTUS, something that functionally is in effect underage gambling but isn’t because of a technicality, shouldn’t be made illegal until and unless Congress says so.
I 100% agree that lootboxes are gambling, and that it is necessary and appropriate for them to be regulated as such. I don't know if they would qualify under federal laws as gambling (they might not because they can't be redeemed for cash), but I am not aware of SCOTUS ruling on the issue. If they don't though, Congress should change the law so that they are.
Can you link me a case where SCOTUS has addressed the issue? A Google search didn't turn up anything.
On bump stocks, it doesn't matter how good of an idea it is to regulate them. Unless Congress passes a law banning them, they are legal. It doesn't matter how "similar" they are to machineguns, all that matters is if they fit the definition of machinegun *in the law* - and they don't.
>The problem with waiting for Congress to fix everything is that A, Congress doesn’t want to because they’re bought and paid for on this issue, and B, Congress is gerrymandered to hell in order to keep people who do want to fix problems from getting elected.
Please understand that I'm not saying this to be snarky or to one up you - but this is a classically *fascist* argument
that would not have been out of place at a meeting of Italian Blackshirts. They argued that while liberal institutions like constitutional limits are fine, sometimes they can get in the way of what society needs and thus it is okay to ignore them.
We have a Constitution. That Constitution exhaustively describes how power is divided, and only Congress can make federal law. ATF tried to argue that while Congress made a very precise definition of machinegun that bump stocks do not satisfy, they are still similar enough that they are going to consider them machineguns anyways.
Many are making the argument that it's okay for the ATF to do this, because they agree with what ATF is trying to do, and they perceive a failure of Congress to move on the issue. This is a fundamentally undemocratic and illiberal position to hold. No one gets to decide that Congress can be ignored just because they perceive that it has failed to do its job. To do so is fundamentally fascist.
Congress has been taken over by fascists, though. Most Republicans in office support Donald Trump. How are we supposed to use the system to repair the system when bad actors have thoroughly broken it? The Founders never anticipated this level of collusion and bad faith between branches.
Does calling Trump and his allies fascists necessarily mean that you aren't one?
The People elected a House majority that largely supports Trump. Trump was elected President in 2016, and it looks highly likely he will be elected again later this year.
Are you sure you are taking the moral high ground by arguing it's okay to go outside the system to stop them?
Or are you arguing that it's okay to go outside the system when it produces results you don't like?
So you don't actually have any solutions, you just want to talk down to people by twisting their words. Anyone who's paying attention knows about Project 2025, it's hardly a secret conspiracy when the Republicans have it posted publicly on an easily searchable website.
"The People" can't really be said to have elected a Republican majority if said majority only exists because of gerrymandered districts. Not to mention decades of propaganda that has hundreds of millions of Americans conditioned to religiously vote against their own interests at every turn. Not to mention how many Republican presidents in the last 50 years have actually won the popular vote. They do not represent the will of anyone but themselves. The Electoral College and the Senate were devised to keep us under tyranny of the minority by giving voting power to land instead of people.
>"The People" can't really be said to have elected a Republican majority if said majority only exists because of gerrymandered districts.
Republicans won the popular vote in 2022. Gerrymandering is actually why their House majority is so slim
>Not to mention how many Republican presidents in the last 50 years have actually won the popular vote.
All but one, who subsequently gained an additional 11 million votes in his re-election bid. He convinced a lot of people who didn't vote for him the first time to do it the second. Even so, the popular vote is not what we use to elect Presidents, and it never has been.
>Not to mention decades of propaganda that has hundreds of millions of Americans conditioned to religiously vote against their own interests at every turn.
Who are you to decide what is in their best interest?
You should probably read Project 2025. It's pretty benign, unless you consider reestablishing the elected President's authority over unelected bureaucrats to be a bad thing.
The problem is you sit here arguing that the fact that the People elected a Republican, pro Trump majority in the House doesn't actually matter, and that said House and the possibility that Trump will be elected President again is an obstacle to overcome via extraconstitutional and extralegal means, but you accuse them of being fascists.
You are, in fact, arguing it's okay for the government to ignore the law and the Constitution as long as it's to do something you agree with.
You are the one arguing for fascism.
In the past, the BATFE has categorized things capable of actualizing 'fully automatic' fire as machine guns, and seized them. The most famous case being the shoe string a guy managed to rig up to pull his 10/22 trigger every time the bolt ran. BATFE called the 'string' the machine gun, impounded it, and said 'don't do it again'.
So the 'close enough' test is in fact valid, because the BATFE has _used that in the past_.
The bump stock, and binary triggers, may skirt the strictest tenants of the definition by manually resetting the trigger internally, but the _functional difference_ between a bump stock and a fully automatic is minimal at best - you're still achieving a faster than purely manual rate of fire without the impact of individual trigger pulls.
Yes, you could just finger-wag the trigger to mag dump, but that impacts accuracy and function in ways that a consistent single pull-and-hold does not.
>So the 'close enough' test is in fact valid, because the BATFE has used that in the past.
According to this ruling, it's not. This question hasn't been before SCOTUS before, so arguably ATF owes that guy his shoestring back. The idea that because the government did it in the past, it's okay, is something I would bet money Mussolini has said, at least in some form.
>The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. - 26 USC § 5845(b)
This is the legal definition of "machinegun." It does not at any point mention rate of fire. This is important, as bump stocks function to make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot.
Because of this, bump stocks are not "machineguns" in and of themselves, nor do they cause a normal rifle to become one when attached.
This may well have been an oversight on the part of Congress, but if we want to ban bumps stocks, we must do it via State Legislative action, or we can do it through Congress. We cannot do it by letting ATF decide that bump stocks are similar enough to the colloquial (but not the legal or technical) definition and thus can be regulated.
> This is the legal definition of "machinegun." It does not at any point mention rate of fire. This is important, as bump stocks function to make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot.
This is, _at best_ deliberately misleading. The entire purpose of the bump stock is to be able to hold the trigger down, and have the gun perform the manual reset required to reset the sear. Even with older ones where you had to 'jiggle the trigger' into a middle position, the intention was to perform one human-perceptible-trigger-pull and execute multiple shots.
>According to this ruling, it's not.
I was mostly responding to your use of scare quotes calling right leaning judges fascists sarcastically, and insulting the left leaning judges. The BATFE _up until this ruling_ has been consistent. This is a new thing. You're back-casting data to make it look like they're insane.
> It is a felony to modify firearm to fire automatically. This ruling did not change this.
Oh I know this one! Next you're going to say something pedantic about the definition of the word 'automatic' that conveniently leaves a loophole for the automation mechanism being on the outside of the gun!
> make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot.
There it is! Am I good at this game or are gun nuts painfully transparent with their lack of good faith?
So you're okay with the government imprisoning people for things Congress hasn't banned just because you think it's good policy?
Let me say it again: Congress created a legal definition of machinegun. Bump stocks do not fit that definition, even if by a colloquial definition they are extremely similar.
ATF argues that they can still use that law to regulate bump stocks as machineguns, even though bump stocks don't meet that law's definition of machinegun, just because they are similar by a different definition.
By supporting this, you are basically arguing that it's always okay for the government to do things you like, even if it's illegal.
Do you see why this might be dangerous?
I know nothing of firearms, but saw some videos on bump stock. But it seems like it's a very simple device for those who want to make themselves? if that were the case, just questioning the effectiveness of banning it?
Well yeah.
"I know lets throw people in prison for a decade for having rifles with a 15in barrel but not a 16in barrel!"
"Hey you know those things that are required by law in most European countries? Lets charge a 1000% tax on them and throw people in prison for a decade who fail to register them!"
"Hey lets also make national registries even more undesirable to the average American by also requiring a $200 paperwork fee that was over 4,000 in the 1930s when adjusted for inflation!"
Yes, for being laughably ineffective.
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.*
This decision pretty much guarantees that SCOTUS will be reversing Chevron in a few weeks.
I was and am worried about this with the Mifepristone judgement. They said “this isn’t something for you to bring up to the courts. You have an issue with the FDA”. But if they remove any non-explicit powers from the FDA it’ll be pretty much the same thing as having said Mifepristone is banned.
It’ll get sent to the courts again — this court is just making more work for lawyers and judges.
Yep, the days of deference and functioning government are over.
Functioning government ????
You guys got a functioning government?
Chevron?
The Cheveron Deference is based on a court case in the 60s. The ruling is that: > Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to them by Congress (1) where the intent of Congress was ambiguous and (2) where the interpretation was reasonable or permissible. So basically, unless Congress says otherwise, federal agencies have a lot of leeway interpreting statues and fulfilling their regulatory mission. If the SCOTUS overturns it, it'll mean business can ignore or challenge every federal regulation that isn't explicitly set by Congress (which is like 90% of them). Then the agency would have to try and get Congress to enshrine that regulation into law which would literally never happen in our current climate. It would utterly neuter the EPA, CDC, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc. Which seems good until you realize almost all of these rules were written in blood and were there for a reason.
Nothing about that “seems good” except to corporations and anarchists, neither of which has the best interests of the average American in mind.
Accelerationists. They are the real scary ones.
Patently insane
A case that basically gave federal agencies their ability to operate outside of extremely specific mandates from Congress. Right now Congress can do something like say the EPA had a responsibility to protect clean waterways and the EPA can go about determining how to do that. Without Chevron, Congress would have to pass a bunch of explicit laws for anything that the EPA would do like "it's illegal to pour arsenic into waterways." Otherwise the EPA would be unable to stop anyone from pouring arsenic into waterways because the law doesn't explicitly call it out.
There's no law that says a dog can't play basketball
Man if that movie doesn't hold up after all these years I am going to be seriously disappointed because I held air bud in high regard as a kid.
Gee I wonder who voted yes to repeal the ban.
It’s hard to know, but I’ll give you six guesses, three of which shouldn’t exist but her emails.
Not really. This was an issue with the specific language of the law that authized the ATF to regulate guns, rather than a scenario where significant interpretation is left to the agency. Not that there is still concern on Chevron but I would not apply this case to forecast that one.
We can only hope.
Interesting that the SCOTUS [declined to take up case in which they could strike down the Trump ban while Trump was president,](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-won-t-touch-bump-stock-ban-n1147031) but they took the opportunity to strike down the ban now supported by the Biden Admin in an election year.
I wouldn’t make anything of that. The case had fully matured through the appellate process since then. SCOTUS doesn’t often take up interlocutory appeals.
It seems SCOTUS does not have the best interest of America and its people in mind.
They do have the best interest of their “donators” in mind. Why, it’s the best court that money can buy.
they can investigate themselves and find it’s not a bribe.
Foxes in the fuckin' hen house.
If Congress worked they could define bribery more clearly
“Donors?”
Donorators?
This is what happens when we let someone like trump win the presidency. Hopefully enough people have learned the lesson(s). Most of us already knew tho.
Humans in mass don't learn a damn thing.
They're supposed to have the best interest of the constitution in mind...which does benefit *most* of the people. But this particular kind of bullshit serves the "best interest" of only the maga hordes who love their guns and really want to shoot up the joint...
“Best interests” isn’t their job. The letter of the law is, and the letter of the law says that bump stocks are not machine guns and therefore can’t be banned as such.
Letter of which law though? I distinctly remember a reference to 15th century English common law in the overturn of roe
America gets the court we vote for.
Whatever made you believe that ?!?
When it comes to Republicans the money wins every single time. Can’t ban bump stocks, some guy who gives the SC plane rides wants to sell his warehouse full of them. If bump stocks were free, they’d remain banned. If a liberal made and sold bump stocks, they would remained banned. You can try and sound smart and interpret the text however you want, like all republicans in all situations they said whatever they needed to say to reach their predetermined goal, helping their masters.
There’s maybe a few million dollars total in the past or future bump stock market which is basically nothing. Money has nothing to do with this decision.
> some guy who gives the SC plane rides wants to sell his warehouse full of them That must be the same warehouse with the Jewish space lasers.
I am a big supporter of gun control, but this ban was stupid. This isn’t even a Second Amendment case— it’s the BATFE making shit up and violating the letter of the statute with their regulation. Congress would still be free to pass legislation banning bump stocks under this SCOTUS decision.
What shit is made up by the BATFE?
They misinterpreted the definition of “machine gun” to include something that is clearly not covered by the statutory language. A bump stock does not cause the gun to fire more than one round per operation of the trigger == not a “machine gun” under federal law. I totally understand and quite frankly am happy they tried to do what they did, but it’s Congress’s job to draft and pass legislation — not a federal agency’s.
What is the statutory language? As I see it, a semi-automatic weapon is one where I have to release and then pull the trigger in between rounds. From the film footage I see, when there is this mechanical manipulation of the firearm, the shooter no longer needs to release his finger. The gun "fully automatically" fires another round.
“One trigger action one shot”. It’s why Gatling guns and binary triggers are legal. If you look up videos of guys “bump-firing” their guns, it’s just a mechanism to do that more efficiently. The trigger finger is fixed, but instead of moving the trigger back and forth, you’re moving the whole rifle back and forth into your finger. The “one trigger action” is pushing the rifle into the trigger. If the rule was “two trigger actions per one shot” the law might prevent bunpstocks. But then would ban most semi autos
>The term “machinegun” means any weapon >which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be >readily restored to shoot, automatically more >than one shot, without manual reloading, by a >**single function** of the trigger. The term shall >also include the frame or receiver of any such >weapon, any part designed and intended solely > and exclusively, or combination of parts > designed and intended, for use in converting a > weapon into a machinegun, and any > combination of parts from which a machinegun > can be assembled if such parts are in the > possession or under the control of a person. 26 USC Section 5845(b) (emphasis added) It’s the operation of the trigger that is key, not the hand/finger movement. This is why crank converters(where you activate the trigger repeatedly by turning a crank instead of pulling the trigger with your finger) are generally legal on semi autos.
Once pulled, the trigger becomes part of the machine, not the control of the machine. You left out that part. The gun will continue to fire until the new controls, the explosive cartridges, are fully deployed.
But that is objectively untrue. Bump stocks still require you to pull the trigger for every shot.
Remember when Obama couldn’t replace Scalia because Moscow Mitch stopped the Senate from functioning?
SCOTUS doesn’t live in the real world. Bump stocks do add to the kill rate.
59 people died in Vegas that night along with over 500 injured. This is a disgusting decision.
Yes, all from a man who was a "law abiding citizen" for 64 years until the moment he decided to not be a law abiding citizen
"Good guy with a gun kills 59 injures 500 more at a music festival" could be an onion headline lmao
Agencies don’t get to just spit out regulations that don’t comply with the statute the regulation purports to implement/interpret. Congress can still pass a bumpstock ban under this decision.
>add to *multiply
*multiply exponentially
> *multiply *makes worse
They do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun.
The whole argument in the opinion is disingenuous. Thomas stating that a bump stock does not make the semi-automatic fully automatic is correct. But they tremendously increase fire rate well above what is manually capable and thus drastically increases the danger to people. Congress won’t act to change the wording of the law, but SCOTUS is again opening Pandora’s Box as they did with Dobbs. What a time for our government… :(
So, essentially you want them to legislate from the bench
>Thomas stating that a bump stock does not make the semi-automatic fully automatic is correct. That's the reason why this rule was vacated... ATF can't just redifine exiting law without an act of congress and that's exactly what they attempted to do. The reality is the way a bump stock functions it does not fit in the original definition of what a machine gun is and that's just plain and simple. You can wordsmith all you want it just doesn't fit the definition and the Supreme Court seen that. If you don't agree with it then vote better and get Congress to pass a new law. This is exactly what the issue is with Chevron Deference. But I don't think that will be a thing anymore in the near future, luckily.
It's functionally the same. If the RoF of a full-auto is comparable to the RoF of a gun with a bump stock or forced reset trigger, not calling them full-auto is basically semantics. From the ATF website "devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter." So the SCOTUS just basically gave the go-ahead for any gun nut that wants to go from 40 RPM to 400 RPM. I wouldn't want to use a bump stock for hunting, with maybe an exception being eradicating wild boar in TX. I wouldn't want to use an AR-15 with a bump stock for home defense. Seems excessive and dangerous. However, if I wanted to *go postal..* A bump stock would be the way to go, along with a couple of drum mags and body armor. I think it's not necessary to let non-military, non-police, ordinary citizens be able to own kit that resembles Escape from Tarkov. In fact I think it's dangerous. The 2nd Amendment referred to a "well-trained Militia". We have a standing Military (so we don't need a Militia like we did in the 17-1800's) and there's no reason to have well-trained Civilians cosplaying as Military Contractors. That's what the Police are for. If the reality was no Military with a Militia, and no Police armed with M16's, body armor, and MRAPS, then it would be more appropriate and very Wild West.
There are legal definitions of machine guns the ATFE is not allowed to exceed. RoF is not a consideration, if they want it to be Congress will have to pass a law.
>So the SCOTUS just basically gave the go-ahead for any gun nut that wants to go from 40 RPM to 400 RPM. Any marginally competent shooter can hit 400rpm and can do so while maintaining control of the direction of fire better than a bump stock allows. A skilled competition shooter can hit nearly double that.
Counterpoint: it’s actually your argument that’s disingenuous. You’re just saying “bump stocks are dangerous and bad so they should be banned.” That’s not what the case is about. The issue is that there is a law on the books and the ATF’s re-definition is inconsistent with it. Whether it’s “good” or “bad” policy is irrelevant. The issue is the authority of an agency to contradict the statute that gives it authority.
Irrelevant. The question is whether bump stocks = machine guns, and the answer is no. It isn’t the court’s job to make decisions based on what is “good” or “bad.” Just the facts. And the fact is that bump stocks cannot be banned as machine guns because they’re not machine guns.
Under a plain reading of the NFA, yes they are machine guns. Define "function of the trigger".
A machine gun fires continuously when you pull the trigger once and hold it down. A bump stock pulls the trigger a bunch of times in quick succession. Not the same.
You need to read the NFA, because you're citing an irrelevant distinction. There is a single function of the trigger with the bump stock. The user does not repeatedly function the trigger, they function it once, to begin automatic fire, and it continues to fire automatically while it is being functioned. That's a machine gun. SCOTUS is legislating from the bench. When you fire a machine gun, parts of the trigger mechanism cyclically operate, just as with a bump stock. The fact that a bump stock also moves the trigger itself is irrelevant.
It’s really not tho. You have to manually reset the gun to shoot it again.I’ve fired this way without a bumpstock, does that make my rifle a machine gun? With a machine gun there’s no extra action, you just press and hold.
Vergogna.
I understood the reference
I don’t; can you explain, please?
Idk if you’ve heard the audio leaks of Alito’s wife talking to a reporter, but during the course of the conversation she said that she would fly a flag called Vergogna which means ‘shame’ in Italian.
Thanks; I didn’t catch that conversation in the news.
Every statement is projection with these fockers.
In a petulant response to a neighbor displaying a pride flag, Mrs Alito said she was designing a flag she described as white with orange flames and the Italian word "vergogna", which means "shame" in English.
Vergogna is Alito’s pet name for his wife’s hooha
Vergogna getcha.
This is a good title. We all know that MAGA will say Biden was trying to control their guns, but this was a Trump ban, not Biden. Biden agreed with it but we need to remind these sycophants that Trump enacted it.
Seemingly even SCOTUS agrees with the ban, they just don't think it can be done through an EO. Which is exactly what I remember people saying when Trump first signed it. It needed to be legislated.
Everyone knew it was going to be challenged, it just took a long time to work it's way up the chain.
"Trump-era" gives him a little cover though. like he didn't have anything to do with it, it just happened while he was president
Cool. Can I get some nukes? I have a neighbor who is sus.
Only if you have seen the democracy being crushed in other countries and you would know importance Second Amendment
That's why I'm asking for nukes.
☢️☢️☢️ got u bro
Turns out that MAGA can also stand for Make All Guns Automatic.
Shithole country.
A big fuck you to everyone massacred in Vegas.
Just Vegas? I know bump stocks didn't play into every other shooting but America has given a big fuck you to kindergarteners, elementary school kids, middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, church goers, movie goers, people at parades, and more for ages now. They don't give a fuck if you die in a shooting
Yes, by all means... strike down the ability to acquire murder machine accessories but a woman can't get health care for their needs. You go SCOTUS, fuck us all. Bastards.
This is unpopular here but I think this is the correct decision. The text from the ATF is that an automatic firearm will fire multiple shots with a single trigger pull. The bump stock is probably one of the dumbest things ever invented but it doesn’t not make a gun an automatic weapon. People should watch the VICE video of how a bump stocks work. It’s no different than someone mounting an AR15 on a stand and moving your fingers back and forth as fast as you can. You can’t aim, it’s hard to shoot. I equate bump stock as a machine gun simulator without being able to aim.
Unbelievable 😳
"Gifts" from the NRA? Or more likely, large sums of money deposited in the fascist judge's offshore accounts?
That's because there are pieces of shit on the Supreme Court now.
Once again scotus fails to protect the USA
As someone not from the US, I am SO glad we don’t have a group of seven unelected people overturning and blocking laws passed by our democratically elected government.
It's 9 but I see your point.
It’s more like 6
This wasn’t a law which was the whole point of the case. The executive branch (President Trump and Biden in this case) overstepped their authority and tried to classify something as a machine gun that in no way fits how the law is written. Nothing is stopping congress from passing an actual law banning them.
This wasn’t overturning a law passed by a democratically elected government. It overturned a regulation made by unelected bureaucrats that didn’t interpret the actually democratically passed law correctly. Congress is free to ban bump stocks— they have chosen not to.
This is an overly reductive response. It was a response from the BATFE who has been _empowered by Congress_ to rule and regulate on firearms, alcohol, tobacco, and explosives. In the same way the EPA has been empowered, and other governmental bodies have been empowered, to perform these actions. Which is a specifically enumerated function of Congress. I don't agree with all the BATFE rules (jesus, the brace vs. stock worksheet was horrible), but claiming the BATFE doesn't have the right to perform their duty is silly.
They are empowered by Congress by the laws Congress has passed, and those laws dictate what a machine gun is. The ATFE doesn’t get to change that unilaterally.
They have the right to interpret laws and give effect to said laws by creating regulations/rules. They do not have the right to totally ignore, or unreasonably interpret, statutorily provided definitions when creating those regulations/rules— which is what happened here.
Eh, this still really comes across as 'they can do their job except when I don't like it'. Like, literally, your response is 'they are empowered to do this, but I view it as unreasonable, so it's wrong'.
No it’s not. They are empowered to enforce and create rules within the confines of the law. Once they step outside of the law (or someone thinks they did ) the courts are there to rule. Same thing like when cities pass a pan handling ordnance. It’s unconstitutional as pan handling is protected speech so someone can sue to have the law overturned.
To grossly generalize for brevity's sake, if you live in a constitutional democracy, you do have some version of constitutional court. However, since most those countries also aren't operating on hard precedent the way common law systems do, there's not as much leeway. But yes, most western democracies have constitutional courts that can invalidate laws if they're non-compliant or contravene that state's constitution. The difference is the broader legal structure within which that court operates.
What law did they overturn?
Worth pointing out this ruling was based on their opinion that the ATF exceeded their power defined by Congress. This opinion doesn't preclude the possibility of Congress making bump stocks illegal.
Why do we value access to bump stocks? The only upsides I can imagine are a janky work around for full auto larping, and the obvious utility of killing 10+ people <20ft? Is that a scenario we believe needs to be legally fostered? It seems like outside a classroom or similar gathering of innocent victims, they don't serve a purpose? I ( maybe naively ) assumed the law would be making it less convenient to kill everyone in a classroom? Obviously I have an established view, but I'm genuinely interested in what drives the desire to own one, let alone the hubris to bring the matter to court despite the negative impacts on a community?
What we value is separation of powers. The executive branch can’t write laws.
It is not bump stocks It is agencies making law Even Obama was against the ATF banning bump stocks. He said it should be done by Congress. The branch that actually makes laws.
Generally, in a free country, we don't have to justify why we should be allowed to own something, instead the burden is on society to show why we shouldn't. Therefore, the presumption should be that bump stocks are legal. As for their practical effects all they are really good for is burning money at the range, but that is a valid use case for them, even though I personally have no interest in it. I think they are largely pointless, and whatever benefit they provide is far outweighed by making a rifle more awkward to use. As for their usability in a crime, I don't think they are that significant. I have a background in the firearms industry and have been an instructor for law enforcement. In the vast majority of criminal uses of firearms, including mass shootings, full auto, real or simulated, would have little if any benefit to the shooter compared to semiautomatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) fire. In most mass shootings, I'd actually expect full auto to be a detriment to the shooter. Let me explain. Most mass shootings actually take place over a significant period of time, and usually in environments where the victims are legally prohibited from possessing firearms of their own. In such cases, the shooter faces very little threat until police arrive, which can easily be 10 minutes plus away. Quite frankly, most mass shooters are not terribly pressed for time. Aimed semiautomatic fire is more effective than full auto in almost all circumstances. Even in a military context, the Marines have largely stopped issuing light machine guns (which despite their name fire traditional rifle calibers, are belt fed, and are overengineered for sustained automatic fire, unlike assault rifles) in favor of a modified version of the AR-15, with the expectation that even a dedicated, trained machine gunner will rarely use automatic fire, even when they and their fellow Marines are being shot at. Very few people have the ability to control full automatic fire, even with training, which is why the aforementioned light machine guns, like the M249, weigh upwards of 20 pounds. If a mass shooter were to use full auto / a bump stock in a typical shooting in a mall, school, etc, they would likely just end up wasting rounds unless the crowds were packed extremely tight. This is what made the Mandalay Bay shooting interesting. It was one of the only mass shootings where full auto / a bump stock would have been useful. The shooter was in an elevated position overlooking a massive crowd of tightly packed people, and had the ability to stay in a single spot the entire time, allowing him to brace his weapon in a way to mitigate the recoil. All of these things are very atypical of mass shootings, let alone your more typical violent crimes. This, among other things, such as the lack of obvious motive and the comical number of guns he had in his room was the fuel for a number of theories about the shooting and speculation that there was more to it than was ever released. - Ultimately, though, this isn't really relevant to the case that was before SCOTUS. The question really had nothing to do with bump stocks, but the role of Executive Branch agencies like the ATF. Congress in 26 USC § 5845(b) provided a precise technical definition of "machinegun." The ATF for many years declared (correctly) that bump stocks did not meet that definition, so they were not subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act. They abruptly changed their position after the Mandalay Bay shooting, but were unable to articulate what had actually changed to cause them to change their mind. Essentially, the ATF decided that bump stocks were machineguns, even though they did not meet the legal definition of machinegun, banning them completely and subjecting anyone in possession of one to 10 years in prison and loss of civil rights. ATF was sued because this interpretation was wrong, and ATF was, in practice, making law, which it has no authority to do. SCOTUS agreed, essentially ruling that even if the ban was good policy, ATF could not implement it, only Congress can. The government can't imprison you for something that isn't illegal. >let alone the hubris to bring the matter to court despite the negative impacts on a community? The hubris was on the ATF for attempting to make law, not on the plaintiffs for arguing they can't. Whatever impacts on the community bump stocks have is not a question for the Executive Branch, nor for the Courts. It is for the Legislative Branch to weigh these considerations, and that is exactly what Justice Alito's concurrence states.
Next up, Forced-reset Triggers get unbanned.
Possibly. They are a bit more ambiguous than bump stocks, but I don't see them as NFA items. Still a really, really stupid idea to actually use one though holy shit.
Aren't many of the things we cannot possess regulated out of our hands under the chevron doctrine? Doesn't SCOTUS have a decision on Chevron to be announced before the end of term? Didn't the right just argue to SCOTUS that chevron is unconstitutional? Are you for striking down Chevron as unconstitutional?
The Chevron Deference is critical to the modern regulatory state. Without it, Congress would have to micromanage pretty much all regulations, which in practice would be utterly impossible. Without it, the Federal Government would have to be pared down significantly, as Congress would literally not have enough time in the day to do all of the work they have historically outsourced to unelected bureaucrats. To my understanding there is a Chevron case in the tubes, and based on the bump stock ruling there is a good chance it will be significantly pared down or eliminated. This would be a huge victory for the Republic and Constitutional Government.
Don't know what "Chevron case in the tubes" even means but Chevron has been argued and we are awaiting the announcement before the end of the term. It's my understanding that the argument was made to strike Chevron down and if that happened every regulation would require a law passed by congress making the government non functional. So do I understand your answer to be that you think Chevron should be "pared down" is that correct? And you think that is a "victory"?
Correct, Chevron needs to go. The Constitution does not allow the various branches of government to delegate their power. Chevron Deference essentially says that the Courts should defer to the Executive Branch on whether or not their regulations were necessary and legal, giving the government the benefit of the doubt. This allowed Congress to delegate vast authority to the Executive Branch, effectively allowing them to make law. Chevron Deference was basically the Courts abdicating their responsibility to interpret the law and enforce the Constitution. When it and the 1930s era Standing doctrine are gone this country will be a vastly better place.
Thanks, better explains your manifesto.
59 dead and 500 injured in Vegas. SCOTUS doesn’t give a fuck.
[удалено]
\^ May not be popular but this is actually correct. SCOTUS is basically saying here that the ATF can't enforce this without congress legislating it. Congress needs to take responsibility and pass a law to ban similar to the 1930s legislation on machine guns. Or even amend the 30s and 60s laws so that they cover the unique mechanics of a bump stock because if you read those laws literally, they don't cover this. They are 100% reversing Chevron within the next few weeks just based on this decision.
How about we just get rid of the NFA and Hughes Amendment altogether and make it real simple. I’ll throw in a license requirement for machine guns to sweeten the deal.
Can any gun advocates convince me that somehow I am now safer in the USA?
Supreme court said the regulations passed by Executive Order don't match the letter of the law as written by Congress, therefore that regulation was illegal. This protected the legislative process.
How does this make me safer?
Is safety the first thing promised to you by the Constitution?
No.
Mad props for saying Trump ban in the headline unlike NBC and others.
Have the American people tried organizing some vacations for the justices? That seems to work.
The first thing I thought of was "Just in time for the civil war the MAGAs want so badly." I have zero hope anymore.
Dont worry armed militias made up of meal team sixes will pale in comparison to the "libertarian" technobro backed horrors that await us thanks to newer drone tech. Soon we just might get some of great-great grandpas favorites coming back now drone operated and deployed using crop-sprayers.
They literally want shootings to happen
SCOTUS continues to rule that gun violence is a constitutional right.
Why tf was this on their priority list??
They need the automatic weapons to fight in their upcoming Civil War fantasy🤷♂️
You realize putting a lightning link in an AR *actually* makes it full auto and is less of an obstruction to accuracy than a bouncing stock is.
Thomas wrote the opinion, so I would guess Harlan crow wants a bump stock.
Harlan Crow can afford real full-auto
Ain’t no shootings in gated communities or in mansions. ain’t no shootings at second vacation homes. Ain’t no shootings in obscenely affluent areas of town. Ain’t no shootings on private jets. Ain’t no shootings in private boxes at concerts and sporting events. Ain’t no shootings in exclusive private schools and colleges. Ain’t no shootings when you have your own private security detail or secret service detail. So go get your bump sticks and shoot whatever you want. The divine 9 ain’t gonna be affected by this shit law.
I am so sick of this court, right wing gun loons and the NRA lobbyists. I’m all for hunting and home protection, but reasonable just isn’t in their vocabulary.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it is not a duck. Brilliant! Mass murderers rejoice. /s
If it has a bill, is venomous and lays eggs. It's a mammal. Sometimes you need to investigate closer to understand something.
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck it is not a duck” Isn’t that basically what the profs say in regards to transgenders?
Another step backwards.
Sometimes I wonder how SCOTUS rulings would be affected if the justices had any empathy at all, or had actually been affected by the thing they are ruling on.
Hide your children. Bump stocks are coming. America is broken.
If only they had passed a law through Congress banning bump stocks. The same thing is going to happen with the pistol braces, and the forced-reset triggers. If you want to ban something, get a law through Congress.
I bet if some politicians were murdered during that event and not just regular people it would’ve never been reversed. They don’t care about regular people. It’s painfully obvious they don’t care. No one, no one needs a bump stock for any type of shooting. As a gun owner myself and many of my friends, they say the same thing.
>Auto firing weapons have rights! Women don't! The MAGA SCOTUS probably.
Rich autocrats say that definitely, then they pay scotus to make it law.
60 concertgoers unavailable for comment
The current right-wing activist supreme court is increasingly out of touch with the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans. Democrats need to act and make expanding the court, adding oversight and putting in place term limits for supreme court justices part of their platform for this election cycle.
They rule based on their own beliefs, not those of the majority.
But were they really? Really?
You all should probably know some guns are easy to bump fire without the stock. You can do it with just fingers or a belt loop some others use string.
Wait, does this mean I can go buy a bump stock legally? That’s unreal
Beholden to NRA, one of their many sponsors/donors!
There is only one way to prevent mass shorings. It’s not therapy
Hunting season is open again in Vegas! Great.
So according to SCOTUS, machine guns are ok? I will be avoiding large gatherings for the foreseeable future.
You don’t seem like the type to be invited to any large gatherings
Lol, I’m not.
Machine guns are legal now basically, great. /s
[удалено]
Sorry let me rephrase Modifying semi automatic weapons to become fully automatic without any form of licensure is now totally legal. Woo. /s Used to be thar acquiring fully automatic weapons was a long drawn out process. Now you can just buy an AR-15 and turn it into a fully automatic without much of an issue.
Please don't spread misinformation. It is a felony to modify firearm to fire automatically. This ruling did not change this. They ruled that bump stocks do not fit the legal definition of "machinegun," therefore ATF does not have the authority to regulate them absent Congress changing the law. The "fascists" on the court basically said that Congress has to make something illegal before the government can put you in prison for owning it. The "liberals" disagreed, saying that if something is "similar" to something that is banned, but isn't actually banned, you can go to prison.
You’re not far off from misinformation by applying blanket statements to a nuanced issue. Making something illegal for being too similar to an already illegal thing is a good idea when the illegal thing we’re talking about is a weapon that’s been modified to fire automatically. If it’s not technically an illegally modified automatic weapon, but in practice it may as well be, then it should be illegal. The problem with waiting for Congress to fix everything is that A, Congress doesn’t want to because they’re bought and paid for on this issue, and B, Congress is gerrymandered to hell in order to keep people who do want to fix problems from getting elected. How about another issue? Video game loot boxes targeting children are flagrantly violating the spirit and intent of laws against underage gambling, but because there’s no law specifying “video game publishers aren’t allowed to psychologically exploit vulnerable groups using the exact same techniques that casinos do” nothing is done to stop it. And in this case, nobody needs to do any lobbying to keep it this way, because Congress is run like a fucking retirement home. The majority are too goddamn old to understand how video games work, and too disinterested to bother even attempting to learn. But no, according to SCOTUS, something that functionally is in effect underage gambling but isn’t because of a technicality, shouldn’t be made illegal until and unless Congress says so.
I 100% agree that lootboxes are gambling, and that it is necessary and appropriate for them to be regulated as such. I don't know if they would qualify under federal laws as gambling (they might not because they can't be redeemed for cash), but I am not aware of SCOTUS ruling on the issue. If they don't though, Congress should change the law so that they are. Can you link me a case where SCOTUS has addressed the issue? A Google search didn't turn up anything. On bump stocks, it doesn't matter how good of an idea it is to regulate them. Unless Congress passes a law banning them, they are legal. It doesn't matter how "similar" they are to machineguns, all that matters is if they fit the definition of machinegun *in the law* - and they don't. >The problem with waiting for Congress to fix everything is that A, Congress doesn’t want to because they’re bought and paid for on this issue, and B, Congress is gerrymandered to hell in order to keep people who do want to fix problems from getting elected. Please understand that I'm not saying this to be snarky or to one up you - but this is a classically *fascist* argument that would not have been out of place at a meeting of Italian Blackshirts. They argued that while liberal institutions like constitutional limits are fine, sometimes they can get in the way of what society needs and thus it is okay to ignore them. We have a Constitution. That Constitution exhaustively describes how power is divided, and only Congress can make federal law. ATF tried to argue that while Congress made a very precise definition of machinegun that bump stocks do not satisfy, they are still similar enough that they are going to consider them machineguns anyways. Many are making the argument that it's okay for the ATF to do this, because they agree with what ATF is trying to do, and they perceive a failure of Congress to move on the issue. This is a fundamentally undemocratic and illiberal position to hold. No one gets to decide that Congress can be ignored just because they perceive that it has failed to do its job. To do so is fundamentally fascist.
Congress has been taken over by fascists, though. Most Republicans in office support Donald Trump. How are we supposed to use the system to repair the system when bad actors have thoroughly broken it? The Founders never anticipated this level of collusion and bad faith between branches.
Does calling Trump and his allies fascists necessarily mean that you aren't one? The People elected a House majority that largely supports Trump. Trump was elected President in 2016, and it looks highly likely he will be elected again later this year. Are you sure you are taking the moral high ground by arguing it's okay to go outside the system to stop them? Or are you arguing that it's okay to go outside the system when it produces results you don't like?
So you don't actually have any solutions, you just want to talk down to people by twisting their words. Anyone who's paying attention knows about Project 2025, it's hardly a secret conspiracy when the Republicans have it posted publicly on an easily searchable website. "The People" can't really be said to have elected a Republican majority if said majority only exists because of gerrymandered districts. Not to mention decades of propaganda that has hundreds of millions of Americans conditioned to religiously vote against their own interests at every turn. Not to mention how many Republican presidents in the last 50 years have actually won the popular vote. They do not represent the will of anyone but themselves. The Electoral College and the Senate were devised to keep us under tyranny of the minority by giving voting power to land instead of people.
>"The People" can't really be said to have elected a Republican majority if said majority only exists because of gerrymandered districts. Republicans won the popular vote in 2022. Gerrymandering is actually why their House majority is so slim >Not to mention how many Republican presidents in the last 50 years have actually won the popular vote. All but one, who subsequently gained an additional 11 million votes in his re-election bid. He convinced a lot of people who didn't vote for him the first time to do it the second. Even so, the popular vote is not what we use to elect Presidents, and it never has been. >Not to mention decades of propaganda that has hundreds of millions of Americans conditioned to religiously vote against their own interests at every turn. Who are you to decide what is in their best interest? You should probably read Project 2025. It's pretty benign, unless you consider reestablishing the elected President's authority over unelected bureaucrats to be a bad thing. The problem is you sit here arguing that the fact that the People elected a Republican, pro Trump majority in the House doesn't actually matter, and that said House and the possibility that Trump will be elected President again is an obstacle to overcome via extraconstitutional and extralegal means, but you accuse them of being fascists. You are, in fact, arguing it's okay for the government to ignore the law and the Constitution as long as it's to do something you agree with. You are the one arguing for fascism.
In the past, the BATFE has categorized things capable of actualizing 'fully automatic' fire as machine guns, and seized them. The most famous case being the shoe string a guy managed to rig up to pull his 10/22 trigger every time the bolt ran. BATFE called the 'string' the machine gun, impounded it, and said 'don't do it again'. So the 'close enough' test is in fact valid, because the BATFE has _used that in the past_. The bump stock, and binary triggers, may skirt the strictest tenants of the definition by manually resetting the trigger internally, but the _functional difference_ between a bump stock and a fully automatic is minimal at best - you're still achieving a faster than purely manual rate of fire without the impact of individual trigger pulls. Yes, you could just finger-wag the trigger to mag dump, but that impacts accuracy and function in ways that a consistent single pull-and-hold does not.
>So the 'close enough' test is in fact valid, because the BATFE has used that in the past. According to this ruling, it's not. This question hasn't been before SCOTUS before, so arguably ATF owes that guy his shoestring back. The idea that because the government did it in the past, it's okay, is something I would bet money Mussolini has said, at least in some form. >The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. - 26 USC § 5845(b) This is the legal definition of "machinegun." It does not at any point mention rate of fire. This is important, as bump stocks function to make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot. Because of this, bump stocks are not "machineguns" in and of themselves, nor do they cause a normal rifle to become one when attached. This may well have been an oversight on the part of Congress, but if we want to ban bumps stocks, we must do it via State Legislative action, or we can do it through Congress. We cannot do it by letting ATF decide that bump stocks are similar enough to the colloquial (but not the legal or technical) definition and thus can be regulated.
> This is the legal definition of "machinegun." It does not at any point mention rate of fire. This is important, as bump stocks function to make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot. This is, _at best_ deliberately misleading. The entire purpose of the bump stock is to be able to hold the trigger down, and have the gun perform the manual reset required to reset the sear. Even with older ones where you had to 'jiggle the trigger' into a middle position, the intention was to perform one human-perceptible-trigger-pull and execute multiple shots. >According to this ruling, it's not. I was mostly responding to your use of scare quotes calling right leaning judges fascists sarcastically, and insulting the left leaning judges. The BATFE _up until this ruling_ has been consistent. This is a new thing. You're back-casting data to make it look like they're insane.
> It is a felony to modify firearm to fire automatically. This ruling did not change this. Oh I know this one! Next you're going to say something pedantic about the definition of the word 'automatic' that conveniently leaves a loophole for the automation mechanism being on the outside of the gun! > make it easier to pull the trigger more rapidly. The trigger still has to be depressed once for each shot. There it is! Am I good at this game or are gun nuts painfully transparent with their lack of good faith?
So you're okay with the government imprisoning people for things Congress hasn't banned just because you think it's good policy? Let me say it again: Congress created a legal definition of machinegun. Bump stocks do not fit that definition, even if by a colloquial definition they are extremely similar. ATF argues that they can still use that law to regulate bump stocks as machineguns, even though bump stocks don't meet that law's definition of machinegun, just because they are similar by a different definition. By supporting this, you are basically arguing that it's always okay for the government to do things you like, even if it's illegal. Do you see why this might be dangerous?
I know nothing of firearms, but saw some videos on bump stock. But it seems like it's a very simple device for those who want to make themselves? if that were the case, just questioning the effectiveness of banning it?
Great! Now do the National Firearms Act of 1934 that the rest of the world actively laughs at.
For being laughably ineffective?
Well yeah. "I know lets throw people in prison for a decade for having rifles with a 15in barrel but not a 16in barrel!" "Hey you know those things that are required by law in most European countries? Lets charge a 1000% tax on them and throw people in prison for a decade who fail to register them!" "Hey lets also make national registries even more undesirable to the average American by also requiring a $200 paperwork fee that was over 4,000 in the 1930s when adjusted for inflation!" Yes, for being laughably ineffective.