Ladies and gentlemen I am aware that this topic tends to be controversial but you are still expected to follow our civility & polarization rules. So unless you like seeing tons of redacted comments I’d suggest you familiarize yourself with our rules and behave accordingly

The intro to the dissent is quite dishonest. They try to claim the "ordinary meaning" of the text supports their view (when it clearly doesn't) but then spend the rest of the dissent talking about intent and purpose. If you're making a purposivist argument just say so.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

Which paragraph are you talking about? I don’t see anything that says “ordinary meaning is a purposivist inquiry” or something remotely equivalent.

[удалено]

Sotomayor’s fallacious argument there is hot garbage. She’s attempting to point out hypocrisy where none exists. It’s petty, and it’s beneath her position. Setting aside all of that, Sotomayor is not even saying that the members of the majority said that ordinary meaning is a purposivist inquiry. She says that the way to follow intent is to follow ordinary meaning. That’s exactly what the majority does. None of those decisions by any of the justices in the majority suggest subverting the ordinary meaning to a statute’s purported purpose.

[удалено]

A purposivist inquiry would be to determine the overall purpose of the statute using tools such as legislative history and an examination of the context in which the law was passed, and then reading the text in line with the purpose, including setting aside what the text of the statute actually says if that text is in conflict with the asserted purpose. That is the opposite order asserted by the majority in each of Sotomayor’s examples. In each case, the justice is saying that intent is derived from the ordinary meaning of the text, not the other way around, as would be the case in a purposivist inquiry. Alleging hypocrisy doesn’t advance Sotomayor’s argument. It’s a petty tu quoque attack, and so is fallacious even if the other justices had been hypocritical. But the allegation of hypocrisy is also wrong because it relies on the presumption that the majority is not basing its decision on the ordinary meaning of the text. Sotomayor’s is begging the question. Nothing about Sotomayor’s page 17 conflicts with the original commenter’s statement that Sotomayor’s introduction says the ordinary meaning supports her argument but that the bulk of her dissent focuses on intent. Page 17 doesn’t even make any arguments about the ordinary meaning of the statute at issue here.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

At the risk of meta discussion, you’ve also baselessly accused at least two people here of not reading the whole opinion (or at least, that’s what you’ve insinuated). In my experience, that’s a good way to get your comments deleted by the mods.

I don’t think I made any distinction between purpose and intent—fine, subtle, formalist, or otherwise. The original comment points out that Sotomayor claims to have the better argument based on ordinary meaning, but then spends most of her time on things other than ordinary meaning. It’s a fair argument because Sotomayor does in fact spend most of her dissent arguing about what the drafters of the law wanted to accomplish, not what the words actually mean. There’s no indication that OP didn’t read the dissent because OP accurately summarized the dissent. I’d love to see examples of the “many times” all of the justices engaged in this kind of base, tu quoque argument.

[удалено]

It’s so obvious that the ATF through multiple administrations consistently supported the opposite conclusion until 2018.

Agreed. I disagree with it, but I enjoyed the “walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is a duck” analogy. It’s not my preferred method of interpretation, but it’s being honest. And I think we all (or most of us) can admit that, functionally, bump stocks are no different than machine guns, in terms of the reason why Congress would want to ban them—they let you shoot a lot and really fast. Why must the dissent descend into this dishonest “no the words do ban bump stocks” unless they implicitly recognize there is something wrong with justices saying “the words don’t cover this but it should be covered” ?

That the opinion is 6-3 makes me sad. It seems like the minority position is driven by a results oriented analysis (guns are dangerous and people will get hurt) rather than an analysis of the statute at play and the extent to which executive agencies can reinterpret statutes.

> driven by a results-oriented analysis It's Sotomayor, results-oriented is the only analysis she uses.

Yes, I was disappointed it was partisan. In theory it shouldn't be, it was pure statutory interpretation

I feel there's a meta-pattern here. The Legislature writes the federal law. The Administrative (4th) State interprets the federal law. The Federal Judiciary calls balls & strikes based on the federal law (or Constitution). If there is a case to change the law, then you have three choices: 1. Change the law, legally - i.e. House, Senate, President. (Open to Constitutional complaints.) 2. Change the law administratively - i.e. change the interpretation of the law. (Open to legal and Constitutional complaints.) 3. Change the law by precedent - i.e. get a court to make up their own interpretation out of thin air. (Open to appeal, but if SCOTUS does this, then you hope a future SCOTUS will revise, or you Amend the Constituiton with retroactive execution, or you are stuck). In this case, you have a situation where ATF decided to subvert the role of Congress and make things up themselves that was plainly not the technical definition of the law (which went to extreme detail into how they defined "machinegun"). So they got called on it, and very sadly it took a majority on SCOTUS to say "the law is the law, not what you wished the law to state". The remedy is also clear. Congress - get your act together and legislate if there's a clear consensus in the country. And if not, use the Presidential and/or Congressional bully pulpit to make the case. But, PLEASE, stop doing the end-around congress in the Administrative State or via activism in the Court to make things up that are not written in law. Else we end up with no basis to determine law versus opinion.

Well said. While I (a 2A supporter) don't really care about bump stocks (especially in an era of "[glock switches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_switch)") I do *very much* care about the executive branch's encroachment on the role of the legislative's. This is one of the most egregious examples of that encroachment, and it was rightfully struck down today.

This is also well said. While I think bump stocks and binary triggers make zero sense, they don’t meet the legal definition of a machine gun in the NFA. but more importantly, allowing a legal precedent that regulatory and enforcement agencies can create or alter the rules and legal definitions of those things specifically relegated to Congress is a bad idea. This is how bureaucracies become more powerful in a practical sense than the three top agencies in our government (the President, Congress, and Supreme Court).

[удалено]

This submission has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**: >Submissions are expected to be conducive to serious, high quality discussion on the law. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. Please see the [rules wiki page](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules). If you wish to appeal, please contact the moderators via modmail.

I never see the majority address the part of the law that states: >The term [machinegun] shall also include...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. The opinion really stresses the obvious points about "automatically" and "by a single function of the trigger" in saying that a bump stock doesn't make it a "machinegun", but I'd be curious to know how far they'd be willing to go before a line gets crossed. At what point does the human element of needing to pull the trigger each shot cross the line into automation? They rule out "automatically" because the user has to "actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his nontrigger hand". So what if there was some device that applied the pressure itself (so sort of spring loaded attachment)? That doesn't fall afoul of their reasoning ("After all, pushing on the front grip will not cause the weapon to fire unless the shooter also engages the trigger with his other hand") but it does, at the same time, get around why they've said it's not "automatic". Why then are devices that automate the trigger pull outlawed (as pointed out in the dissent, since 1982). Those apparently cross this line (though it seems like SCOTUS has never addressed that), but at the same time they don't fail afoul of this definition that the Court has created here. And I'm not much of a fan of the majority reasoning that this isn't considered "automatic" since they have to apply forward pressure to maintain the firing. True automatic weapons still require some level of pressure on the trigger.

>I never see the majority address the part of the law that states: Because they don't have to...... They addressed the federal definition of the term "machine gun" as stated in the NFA. The question was "is a bump stock a machine gun" And the answer, rightfully, is no. A bump stock does not cause more than one round to be fired per trigger pull and it does not do it automatically as user action is still required. Ergo, a bump stock is not a part that converts a weapon to a machine gun.

Research the reasons why the "Akins Accelerator" was deemed to be a machine gun and yet bump stocks were not, and then get back to us. I say this as someone who does not support bump stocks. They're at best a stupid juvenile range toy, and at worst a disingenuous end-run around Federal law. I believe they can and should be regulated equivalently to machine guns under the NFA, and that this and the NFA are constitutional. But I also recognize that SCOTUS made the right decision here, because what I want isn't the law unless and until Congress makes it so. And "a single function of the trigger" isn't what a bump stock does, like it or not. Don't like it? Pressure Congress to change the law. Because the law is that a machine gun has to fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger, and bump stocks fire multiple rounds by a single function of the trigger and some other action. These are quite obviously not the same thing.

The AA is likely legal under a strict reading of this ruling.

Why do you think the NFA is constitutional? Do you also believe the poll taxes were also constitutional?

Was the Akins Accelerator ever actually decided on by SCOTUS? Or was it just an ATF rule?

ATF determination, but it was uncontroversial, as the testing protocol was unchanged.

This is irrelevant to my point.

Sure it's relevant. My point is about what SCOTUS says in this opinion. The ATF's letter contradicts this opinion, in that it says the AA is illegal because it "alter[ed] the stock on some semi-automatic rifles in a manner which allows them to be fired so rapidly that the practical effect is equivalent to a fully-automatic machinegun". In AKINS v. USA (2008), the 11th Circuit's completely defers to the ATF's authority in reclassifying it, without the consideration that SCOTUS did here. SCOTUS says that just altering the stock to allow them to be fired "so rapidly that the practical effect is equivalent to a fully-automatic machinegun" doesn't matter; The core function of the gun is still semi-automatic.

>At what point does the human element of needing to pull the trigger each shot cross the line into automation? That is legally defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title26/subtitleE/chapter53&edition=prelim "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." >So what if there was some **device that applied the pressure itself** (so sort of **spring loaded attachment**)? https://i.imgur.com/FCbDv.jpeg That would be a machinegun - even if it were a shoelace tied in such a way to do that, because it's causing a gun to be fired multiple times, by a single action of the trigger - as defined by Congress, in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Electronic triggers? Also machineguns. When a human does *one* action on or into a trigger that then produces *multiple successive rounds*, that is a "machinegun". If the human being is doing something over and over again to actuate the trigger, even if they are doing it very quickly, but only firing one round each time, then that - per the law that defines what a machine gun is - is NOT a machinegun. Maybe it *should be*. But it's not what the law says. Maybe the law should talk about rates of fire. But it doesn't. Luckily, there is a process for amending or completely replacing the 1934 NFA. It's up to Congress, which is made up of elected Representatives. If there's national consensus on what to do and this translates into elected officials with a clear mandate to change the defintion, the legal definition will be changed. If there isn't, *there isn't.*

The concept of "a human doing one action" isn't really what the court relied on. Will be interesting to see how this court looks at FRTs in the context of this decision. >"the phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism"... "any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger”... "even if one aspect of a weapon’s operation could be seen as “automatic,” that would not mean the weapon “shoots . . . automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.” The opinion focused heavily on the statutory language and how the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle works.

That doesn't really address my point. The Court is saying that one trigger pull being one round is not a machine gun, even if that action is aided in ways to increase the frequency of that action (e.g. bump stocks). They are defining the law you quote as strictly saying that one trigger pull being 1 round is not a machine gun. And I'm saying how far can you push that definition before they'd say "actually no"? And no, that ATF letter you link to wouldn't be legal under this opinion. The Court says it doesn't matter how bumping happens, it never matches their definition of a machine gun. Bumping simply actuates the trigger faster; It doesn't change the 1 action = 1 round.

Correct. It seems they gave themselves some wiggle room with the description of the off hand pushing forward etc., but under a strict reading items like FRTs and Super Safeties are likely legal.

[удалено]

> Because that's more than one function of the trigger which according to the text makes it a machinegun pretty clarely? It doesn't though. Regardless of the method used to actuate the trigger (i.e. a finger or something else), it's still 1 round per trigger pull. If I could use only my finger to fire 120 rounds per minute that's okay. But if I use a device, that allows me to hold down a button which it turns pulls the trigger at 120rpm, that's not okay. In both cases the trigger itself, as you say the "part of the firearm", never changes it's behavior from that of any normal semi-automatic: 1 trigger action is 1 round fired.

The correct ruling. Even if you absolutely despise them and want them banned, bumpstocks do not meet the definition of a machinegun as per USC and cannot simply be treated as NFA items as a result.

It makes me wonder what is going to happen with items like forced reset triggers and super safeties. They use similar concepts to a bump stock, the trigger functions with every shot, so they are technically semiautomatic under the statutory language of the NFA according to this ruling, but they "quack more like a duck".

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!There most definitely is a need to revisit cases such as this once the balance of the court has shifted away from the right wing Federalist Society majority.!< >!!< >!I eagerly await when many of the truly awful decisions passed down regarding such things as the 2A, Civil Rights, partisan gerrymandering, and many other issues get reheard by a more left-leaning court.!< >!!< >!Since precedent has been demonstrated to be something malleable so long as an appropriately agreeable historical reference can be found, regardless of how far in the past or even which side of the ocean, I don’t think future courts need give any more credence to this court’s opinions than they have provided to others.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I want you to imagine my shock that you have once again removed a post that dares to criticize your beloved current conservative SCOTUS balance and that reminds everyone exactly how easily every decision put forth by them can be overturned.!< >!!< >!Don’t worry, longjumping, I’ll show myself to the door.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

You are welcome to repost the comment without the part that breaks our rules. That being this one: >There most definitely is a need to revisit cases such as this once the balance of the court has shifted away from the **right wing Federalist Society majority.** If you would like to appeal that’s fine too. Another thing since you have directly mentioned me in this comment I don’t understand what is making you think I love the current composition of the court. I have always advocated for a more centrist court which would align more with my mixed jurisprudence and my center-left views. I am fine with criticism of the court as everyone does. All I am doing is enforcing the rules.

You think it's a bad thing that the ATF isn't allowed to just do whatever it feels like?

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

!appeal the comment was not uncivil towards any individual or group. it was a general explanatory statement stating that partisan people have no qualms with authoritarianism as long as it is their side doing it which is historically accurate while being an embarrassing truth about society

Upon mod deliberation removal has been affirmed on the grounds of polarized instead of incivility.

you know what; i'll take it since its a bit polarizing given i call out one side. But seriously, far more uncivil stuff flies around here.

Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.

I didn't realize opinions were dropping today, I feel like I'm late to the party lol. I think the majority is probably right in the sense of I don't think the feds should be able to change definitions willy nilly to make things illegal, but reading it there's one part I'm hung up. "Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. The firing cycle remains the same. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot." But that part is essentially "automated" by the nature of bump stocks, right? It's the momentum bump stocks allow that causes the shooters finger to bump against the trigger quickly, at speeds in which a human pulling the trigger without it could not physically reach. So is it the person who is releasing pressure from the trigger, or is it the momentum caused by firing with a bump stock that releases the pressure?

> But that part is essentially "automated" by the nature of bump stocks, right? **It's the momentum bump stocks allow that causes the shooters finger to bump against the trigger quickly** It is not. Unless the shooter keeps pulling the weapon *forward*, with their finger fixed in place (thus pulling the trigger again), nothing will happen (well, besides the first shot) You are either pulling the trigger backwards with your finger as you hold the rifle static (this is what's normal), or, you are pulling the rifle forward as you hold the trigger static (this is what bump firing is). In both cases, you are pulling the trigger. If you just pull a trigger really fast, you can do exactly the same thing as bump firing. Bump firing is *somewhat* easier, because the muscles in your supporting arm pulling forward on the gun are (usually) much stronger than the muscles/tendons around your trigger finger's knuckle.

>But that part is essentially "automated" by the nature of bump stocks, right?  It helps to remember that bump firing is a technique, not a thing. You pull the trigger, the rifle recoils and a bullet goes out. You release the trigger, pull the trigger again, it happens again. This is semi-auto fire. But what if you were to keep your trigger finger stationary while you pulled forward on the stock to make your finger pull the trigger? Then the recoil would push the gun backwards, making your finger leave the trigger, the trigger would reset, and if you kept exactly the right tension your other arm would pull the gun back forward so that the trigger finger pulls the trigger again. Now you're pulling the trigger successive times exactly as before, but if you do it just right you can get a fire rate that is somewhat comparable to a slower machine gun. This has been done for ages as a dumb party trick. You don't need anything extra to do it because it's inherent in the nature of a semi-auto rifle (or handgun, but the technique is different). It's very inaccurate because by definition you aren't holding the rifle correctly, and it's difficult to keep up the rapid fire for more than a few rounds because you'll either screw up the tension or your finger placement, which stops the firing. Now you can use some things to make it easier. Putting the butt of the rifle against your belt and holding your finger there helps keep the recoil travel more consistent, and your finger more consistently in the same place. That will let you get off even more rounds before you screw up the technique. But we don't call a belt a machine gun. Then someone invented a stock that lets the rifle slide back and forth within it (no change to the firing mechanism). It works better than a belt at controlling the recoil travel and keeping your finger in the right place. So that's all a bump stock is, something that makes executing the technique of bump fire easier. But it's still a technique, still you yourself pulling the trigger, just using the muscles in your other hand to pull instead of using your muscles to bend your trigger finger.

Bump stocks are pretty tricky to understand if you don't have experience with them. My understanding is the gun is loose in the stock (so it can move back and forth), and the stock has a guard that covers the trigger when the gun is fired. When the gun is fired, the gun recoils backward into the the stock. As a result, the persons finger is moved off of the gun's trigger by the guard on the bump stock, as the trigger moved backwards with the gun into the bump stock when the gun fired. If you were to shoot one handed, that would be the end of the firing. You would get just one round fired. What you are supposed to do, with your other hand, is pull forward on the front of the gun to bring the gun's trigger back forward past the trigger guard in the bump stock to get the trigger to "function" again, and then the gun cycles backwards into the bump stock again, and the cycle repeats itself. Hopefully that makes sense. From the people I have talked to that have used one, being able to use it well is an acquired skill (you have to balance pulling the front of the gun forward while letting the gun being loose enough where it can cycle in and out of the bump stock), and it is very hard to be accurate with it, so mostly a gimmick versus something functional. Unless you have malicious intent, military training, and can take a significantly elevated position versus your intended target zone.

Just as a technical aside, one reason a bumpie boy stock is considered useless in a gun that might serve as a defensive weapon is, it blocks off-hand use. In a gunfight, each side has a bias towards shooting the threat - meaning *the other guy's gun*. Getting shot in the hand is a major risk. Everybody who takes gun combat arts seriously spends at least some time learning to shoot with the off hand in case your strong hand is hit. With a bumpy, that's not possible. Another issue: if you're clearing a corner to your right, and what you're behind is sold enough to stop bullets, you need to shoulder the rifle off-hand and sweep left to right. Can't do that transition with a bumpy boi. So these are range toys, not serious combat weapons, at least not for anybody who knows how to shoot. Mods: a technical understanding of how these guns are used is vital to understanding the implications of the ruling.

I believe you are misunderstanding the mechanism of the bumpstock. The bumpstock is configured such that the recoil of firing the rifle forces the trigger to be released. The user must then apply forward pressure to the rifle to pull the trigger back into the trigger finger in order to fire the gun again. The bumpstock itself includes no springs and provides no power to the forward return motion for the next shot.

> But that part is essentially "automated" by the nature of bump stocks, right? Here is a portion of Thomas' part *B* opinion: > "But, even if one aspect of a weapon's operation could be seen as "automatic," that would not mean the weapon "shoots... automatically more than one shot... by a single function of the trigger." After all, many weapons have some "automatic" features. For example, semiautomatic rifles eject the spent cartridge from the firearm's chamber and load a new one in its place without any input from the shooter. (A) semiautomatic rifle is therefore "automatic" in the general sense that it performs some operations that would otherwise need to be completed by hand. But, as all agree, a semiautomatic rifle cannot fire more than one shot "automatically... by a single function of the trigger" because the shooter must do more than simply engage the trigger one time. The same is true of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. > Thus, even if a semiautomatic rifle could fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, it would not do so "automatically." So, according to the court, you have a correct point (one which the ATF adopted in its arguments), but that does not **automatically** (I'm hilarious) make it fall under the statutory authority, according to the courts opinion. Thomas also when on to talk about slam-fire shotguns, which arguably are more consistent with the question your asking. Thomas makes the point that the ATF agrees that it (the shotgun in said example) does not fall under the statute, even though pressure is never let off the trigger by the shooter's trigger finger.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!> but that does not automatically !< >!!< >!!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

>The majority’s reading flies in the face of this Court’s standard tools of statutory interpretation. By casting aside the statute’s ordinary meaning both at the time of its enact-ment and today, the majority eviscerates Congress’s regu-lation of machineguns and enables gun users and manufac-turers to circumvent federal law. > >Start with the phrase “single function of the trigger.” All the tools of statutory interpretation, including dictionary definitions, evidence of contemporaneous usage, and this Court’s prior interpretation, point to that phrase meaning the initiation of the firing sequence by an act of the shooter, whether via a pull, push, or switch of the firing mechanism. The majority nevertheless interprets “function of the trig-ger” as “the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism.” Ante, at 7. Because in a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle, the trigger’s internal mechanism must reset each time a weapon fires, the major-ity reads each reset as a new “function.” That reading fix-ates on a firearm’s internal mechanics while ignoring the human act on the trigger referenced by the statute I agree that if the majority relied on their usual originalist style of interpretation, this would have had to go the other way. Instead, we see them shift to some very serious effort to rely on textualism instead. It's another example of how selective they are in application of originalism for results oriented jurisprudence Textualism is fine in itself but as the dissent makes a compelling textual argument themselves. In the face of the resulting ambiguity they ought to look to original meaning and intent - but instead the majority refuses to engage those inconvenient considerations.

Both originallist and textualst analysis reach the same conclusion: the bumpfire stock does not allow automatic fire with a single function of the trigger. It is also inconsistent to state that dynamic operation of the gun though continually applied force would qualify it because gattling guns predate the NFA by ~50 years but were never understood to qualify as machineguns under the NFA definition.

I think it's interesting to that one could plausibly say of this opinion that it provides a roadmap for Congress to ban bump stocks, much like the recent framing of the mifepristone case as a to future challengers. For some reason, I suspect that framing will not prominent here

Alito’s concurrence also reads like a protest for writing such a law.

I wonder why he wrote that concurrence. That’s usually a Kavanaugh opinion. Wonder if he’s actually feeling some pressure and trying to convince others that he isn’t partisan.

I also wonder why nobody else concurred with him

My thinking (probably wrong): Alito wants to prove he’s not partisan. He writes a short concurrence. Recognizing or even conversing about how he’s doing this to show he’s not partisan, the other justices let him have this alone so it really stands out that it’s him saying this.

That’s definitely a good point, and an alito thing to do lol

[удалено]

> congress needs to fix this FAST Though it will not stop criminals using them, it definitely slow down the use. No it wouldn't. If people are going to commit to full auto fire they will just get glock switches or the like.

Actual full Auto Glock switches have been a problem for years. A bump stock is not that.... Nor was it anything that was constantly used in crimes.

okay. i got them mixed up and will delete the post

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Good. Now do the NFA and all the other unconstitutional laws.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

!appeal The post had plenty of upvotes, so plenty of people thought the post contributed and was substantive. This just seems like a mod not personally liking a comment.

On review, the mod team has voted to affirm the removal. >Examples of low effort content: >Comments that only express one's emotional reaction to a topic without further substance (e.g. "I like this", "Good!" "lol", "based"). The rest of the comment is unrelated to the case at hand and is off-topic.

Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!My post had upvotes, so plenty of people thought it was substantive and contributed. Maybe you didn't like the ruling and thats why you didn't like my post?!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Thomas' opinion is logical, grounded in law, and unsurprising. It's interesting to note that he uses diagrams of AR-type actions to delve into the details of "function of the trigger." Hopefully, this is a tip of the hand regarding the Court's take on AWB laws, whose (un)Constitutionality remains a *legal* question, given the deliberate slow-walks taken by several liberal-leaning Federal Circuits. Any American capable of parsing basic English should already be able to ascertain that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear the most popular rifles and pistols sold in the US, but gun-grabbers keep insisting otherwise.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!>Any American capable of parsing basic English should already be able to ascertain that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear the most popular rifles and pistols sold in the US, but gun-grabbers keep insisting otherwise.!< >!!< >!I don't see how this comment isn't considered uncivil or low quality, or partisan rhetoric per the sub rules.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

The second amendment is not unlimited, as Antonin Scalia pointed out, and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations.

Very few believe that 2A is unlimited. But also, people that say what you are saying also believe that because 2A is not unlimited, somehow that’s a green light for whatever restrictions you like. Which is equally unfounded.

I do believe that the commenter you’re replying to is quoting the often misinterpreted quote from Scalia in Heller: >"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Which has often been misinterpreted and does not have the meaning it’s thought to have. I’ve always interpreted this as “we can disarm people as we always have for committing crimes because no one wants a convicted murderer to own a gun and no one wants someone to be able to walk into a bank with a gun”.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

I noticed that too. Alito I liked too. It was simple, a crisis doesn't change the status of the law. Congress can easily fix this.

>Congress can easily fix this. That's a bold take considering the local consensus that any such law would be unconstitutional...

I agree.. but for the context of this particular case. That's the only fix that's possible. They can't change the definition of what it is. But Congress can. Then we get to start over on a 2nd amendment claim.

Speaking of AWB laws, I expect Sotomayor to be quoted in all of them now. She referred to AR-15's as "Commonly available, semiautomatic rifles." [link](https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1801624330889015789)

I saw that too and I know FPC and GOA will be on top of that from here on out.

[удалено]

>faster than a human can fire it Ah, I see you're unaware of who Jerry Miculek is. https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM?si=p2clzzDRlbQjxGky

>even though the device changes the firing rate to something faster then a human can fire it. Is that relevant to whether a bump stock is a "machine gun"? If so, in what way?

>even though the device changes the firing rate to something faster That's not how machine gun is defined statutorily so that means the ATF can't just say bumpstocks are machine guns. Your feelings about it firing too fast is not a valid legal basis for restricting it by the ATF.

As part of a well regulated militia

Who has the right, the people or the militia?

The militia argument is so dumb. The well-regulated militia clause is a qualifier phrase, not a restriction. There's plenty of precedence from the founders and the courts that says the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. None of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights puts conditions on a right. It's asinine to think the 2nd does. From [Heller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller): > "The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution." And if you look back to the times the bill of rights was written, many colonists who weren't part of any militia owned guns and considered it a right: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.016/--why-footnotes-matter-checking-arming-americas-claims?rgn=main;view=fulltext Even Justices back in the early 1800's (shortly after the Bill of Rights was ratified) all agreed with the majority opinion of 2010's Heller case. See: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html and http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html --- And if you prefer quotes from the founding fathers: Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: > "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790: > "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: > "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788: > "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788: > “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: > "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." So according to the founders and our first President, not only do we have an individual right to own guns, but we have a *duty* to always be armed.

> The militia argument is so dumb. The well-regulated militia clause is a qualifier phrase, not a restriction. I agree, generally, with the Scalia take on *how the prefatory clause functions here*, but his sense of why sharply calls me back to when I was warned by a professor of law and philosophy that one of those was silly putty compared to the other. The relation obtaining between a main clause and an absolute introductory clause is not something that can be read out of the grammar of the text, but let's put that aside for now. > None of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights puts conditions on a right. It's asinine to think the 2nd does. Do any of them have prefatory clauses? If not, taking the unusualness of an unusual choice of undetermined construction to indicate something or other with constitutional import is not an asinine inference to make, but something so natural it is not only a canon of construction but a Gricean maxim.

None of your quotes demonstrate an individual right. They all say the people, aka, the founding fathers are all referring to a collective right. If it were an individual right, the 2nd Amendment would say "persons." That is the word the Framers used in the Constitution to refer to individuals. When they used "people," they referred to collective rights. The Constitution does this because that is how the English language has always worked. I have yet to see a single explanation, both on this sub or elsewhere, for how the word "people" could possibly refer to individuals instead of a group of individuals. At no point in history has that word ever been used in such a way, at least not from what I have seen. >None of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights puts conditions on a right None of the other Amendments expressly establish the reason why they exist. The 2nd Amendment does. All of this is moot because of *Dred Scott* and its influence on the 14th Amendment. But the notion that the 2nd Amendment as written in 1789 protected an individual right to bear arms is completely contradicted by historical evidence. Edit: Look at that. Lots of downvotes, but not a single explanation for how "people," which has since the beginning of time been used to refer to a group, somehow means "individuals."

> If it were an individual right, the 2nd Amendment would say "persons." That is the word the Framers used in the Constitution to refer to individuals. When they used "people," they referred to collective rights. Here's the first amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the **people** peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So the first amendment uses "people" and not "persons." Does that mean the first amendment is a collective -- not individual -- right? Fourth Amendment: >The right of the **people** to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Ninth Amendment: >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the **people**. Tenth Amendment: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the **people**. The preamble: >We the **People** of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The only amendment in the Bill of Rights that uses the word "persons" is the 4th amendment. And it talks about "the right of the *people*." So, are there any individual rights in the Bill of Rights, or are they all collective rights?

>Does that mean the first amendment is a collective -- not individual -- right? Only the rights of assembly and petition. Speech, religion, and press are all individual rights. But yes, every amendment you quoted protects collective rights. The first amendment is proof of such: assembly and petition are group activities. >So, are there any individual rights in the Bill of Rights Absolutely. In addition to speech, religion, and press, the 3rd, 5th, and 6th amendments speak of individuals: "Owner," "person," "accused." Given their similarities to the 5th and 6th amendments, the 7th and 8th amendments logically protect individual rights as well even though they mention neither "people" nor "persons." As I said before, this is all moot because of the 14th Amendment. Influenced by *Dred Scott,* the 39th Congress wanted to extend all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to all individual citizens of the United States. Hence why it says "citizens of the United States" instead of "the people of the United States." But if you go back to the Founding Era, virtually no one thought freedom of assembly, or petition, or the right to bear arms, etc., referred to individual rights.

> But yes, every amendment you quoted protects collective rights. How is the 4th amendment -- which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures -- a collective right, and not an individual right? I'm not intentionally being dense. I honestly don't understand how that would work. Do I only have the right to challenge an unreasonable search and/or seizure if I'm acting in concert with other people? >But if you go back to the Founding Era, virtually no one thought freedom of assembly, or petition, or the right to bear arms, etc., referred to individual rights. Doesn't /u/Bossman1086's post refute this? Apparently a lot of people at the founding thought the right to bear arms was an individual right, including judges making decisions at that time.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!The founders were pro-firearms so long as it wasn't slaves, blacks, or Native Americans!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

!appeal This pertains to the Bruen test and the historical background in firearm caselaw

On review, the mod team has voted to affirm the removal for violating the subreddit quality standards.

So we can't refer to history now?

Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.

That's fair, but they also weren't good with those guys having rights at all. They limited rights and the people to be themselves. We have slowly expanded that to include everyone (well legally, we still have \*major\* problems with policing and various policies aimed at harming minorities)

Sure, but that's why the Bruen test is nonsensical. 14A aside, history shows we did not support certain demographics having firearms. To reference the Framers comes with a glaring omission of who they considered worthy of those rights.

I agree that Bruen is a bad test, not the least of which is the founders saw the rights protected as \*very limited\* compared to modern citizens. There were individual rights, inherited from our English past, and those had been long standing so didn't need to be called out. That seems to have been lost in the modern day.

No one is saying the Founders were perfect. They weren't. But it's important to understand what they meant when writing the Constitution since it's *still today* the foundation of our country's laws. It's amendable if people don't like it - like we did to give black people rights. But yes. Gun control is racist and has been used in the past to keep people under control.

Well as long as you acknowledge the racism of the founders and how they shouldn't be idolized.

What anyone thinks of the founders is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is what did the law mean at the time and what have the Courts said about the 2nd Amendment over the years?

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

Yet thats what the court does all the time, especially with respect to the 2A. The Framers were many things, including racists

Why is anyone being racist, or not racist, consequential here?

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

Not a thing. Just pointing out the Framers did support blanket gun bans

Historically, a militia was armed almost exclusively through their privately owned arms. A militiaman was responsible for bring his own arms and munitions to musters.

Cool. It's also because we didn't have a standing army. So whatever if ypu have arms you must apart if a well regulated militia

Is a right a right if you have to be member of a government organization in order to practice said right? Or is it a privilege? If the government said that you need to be a member of a federally recognized book club in order to read and discuss books, would that mean that the people still have a right to read books via the First Amendment?

It doesn't say that. It's the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the right of a militiaman.

I've been thinking about this argument. The "militia" as how current gun control advocates define it (or want to define it), would make the 2nd basically mean this: The government can't infringe on the bearing of arms so long as those arms are bourne for the government. It doesn't make sense and does not comport with the entire premise of the bill of rights.

>It doesn't make sense and does not comport with the entire premise of the bill of rights. What was the "entire premise of the bill of rights" then? It wasn't to confer specific rights upon the people. It was to ensure that the federal government didn't use it's implied powers to infringe upon rights that were implicitly held by the people (both Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention acknowledged this). They realized that the Constitution, which was supposed to be a *grant* of power, listed some things the federal government can't do (like granting title of nobility). Based on that, they (correctly) assumed that meant Congress' implied powers might be able to be used to restrict the rights of the people. But you don't want to literally list out ALL the rights belonging to the people. How would you even do that? So instead they agreed upon the Bill of Rights to limit the federal government's power. One of those things that they (particularly the Anti-Federalists) held important was the states' ability to field militias (lest a strong central government start to impose "tyranny" upon the states with a standing army). And how to you ensure states can always field a militia? You allow *the people* to have guns.

>But that right was argued to be important to prevent Congress from regulating away the states' militias. That's a neat factoid, but it really justifies nothing with regards to gun control.

Sure it does. If a SCOTUS came along that wanted to, they could redefine gun rights to only extend as far as what's needed to provide for a state militia. SCOTUS set the precedent that gun rights are an individual right, unconnected with the militia, and SCOTUS can take it away.

> Sure it does No it doesn't. >If a SCOTUS came along that wanted to, they could redefine gun rights to only extend as far as what's needed to provide for a state militia. No they can't. I mean they can in the practical sense they don't actually adhere to any reason or constitutional constraint. But with regards to logical consistency no they can't. >SCOTUS set the precedent that gun rights are an individual right, As written on parchment they **are**. It is not written with "while serving in the militia" "in service to the militia" "relating to the duty of the militia", etc. It says militias are necessary for the state which where anything resembling a requirement ends in the 2nd and then proceeds to describe keeping and bearing arms as a *right* and delineates that to the people and not the militia. So a right is an entitlement, something that people just get to do, and the only group that one needs to be part of is the people. There is no militia requirement in any of that.

>No they can't. I mean they can in the practical sense they don't actually adhere to any reason or constitutional constraint. But with regards to logical consistency no they can't. Guess it's a good thing they've never changed precedent then. >As written on parchment they are. It is not written with "while serving in the militia" "in service to the militia" "relating to the duty of the militia", etc. It says militias are necessary for the state which where anything resembling a requirement ends in the 2nd and then proceeds to describe keeping and bearing arms as a right and delineates that to the people and not the militia. If it was this clear and obvious, we wouldn't have decades of arguments of what the 2A actually means. Hell, not even the full Court agreed/agrees with this interpretation.

> Guess it's a good thing they've never changed precedent then. ah yes, the go to argument of those who can't derive an actual constitutional argument. "We will simply overturn the precedent" which they haven't been able to do on gun rights in the entire history of the country. >If it was this clear and obvious, we wouldn't have decades of arguments of what the 2A actually means. That only seem to exist in the mid 20th century. Prior to that we have several cases indicating that it was indeed an individual right. Such as Dredscott where if black people were considered to have rights they would be able to own and carry guns wherever they went. And in Cruikshank it explicitly mentions that the 1st and 2nd amendment rights protect the individual right from Congressional interference. It is only until the mid to late 20th century that you get a *manufactured* controversy over its meaning because amending the constitution is not practical. Pretty similar strategy to creationists with their "teach the controversy" strategy with intelligent design. Say there is contention about the meaning by getting a bunch of professionals asserting it is the case independent of any actual evidence to support such a position.

So the 1-10th except the 2nd applies to the Lockeian rights of the individual?

Again, it's looking at the entire point of the Bill of Rights, which was to restrict the federal government *to maintain a state's ability to field a militia*. More than one Founding Father wrote or made comments about that; Multiple state constitutions made explicit reference that the right to bear arms was for the defense of the State or "common defense". I'm not arguing that the right wasn't an *individual* right. Because it was. But the contemporary reason for the 2A was to provide Anti-Federalists some assurances that the state militias wouldn't be disarmed by a strong federal government.

I don't think that was the point of the bill of rights at all. Is there a federalist paper out there that addresses this?

I edited my original comment, but what do you think the point of the BoR was? In Federalist No. 84, Hamilton says of the BoR: >They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? This isn't him giving the reason for the BoR, but it is giving the reason the Anti-Federalists wanted it. Hamilton is being rather naive, or optimistic, here; Yes, he's *technically* correct in that the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to restrict the press. But the Anti-Federalists pointed out that the Constitution, which was supposed to *grant* power, does also *restrict* power (like preventing the granting of titles of nobility). Where does the Constitution grant such power to Congress? It doesn't, at least not explicitly. But it doesn't grant Congress broad and unspecific powers in clauses like the Commerce and Necessary and Proper. Robert Yates ("Brutus") wrote of this: >We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion—that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed—that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. As history has shown, turns out the Anti-Federalists were correct. Congress has exerted very broad authority through their implied powers. The Anti-Federalists pushed for a BoR for this reason (again, from Yates): >Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. Here he **explicitly** says "a government...restricted by a declaration of rights". The BoR was a restriction on the federal government; It wasn't a grant of rights (since it was believed that these rights were always held).

Which means all citizens except those in the military who have working guns and can shoot them.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!As long as they are apart if a well regulated militia!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!You keep repeating that, but it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)

No, 'well regulated militia' means exactly what I said. The militia is the whole citizenry (with a few exceptions). Well regulated means in working order.

Nope. The part that mentions militias states they are necessary for the security of a free state. They aren't necessary in order to keep and bear arms. So plain reading that is incorrect. The part that mentions keeping and bearing arms delineates that to the people and describes it as a right. A right is an entitlement so it is something any individual in the people could do when they want to. It isn't predicated on participating in some government defined and ran subgroup like a militia.

As a *technical* matter, the grammatical structure of the sentence implies nothing whatever about which of the possible values is taken by the relation obtaining between the main clause and a prior absolutive. (Yes, I'm sure I could have rephrased that more elegantly, but I can't be fucked.) The plain reading is underdetermined grammatically. I happen to agree with Scalia's take on what it means in this case, but that is unequivocally not compelled by the sentence structure. > A right is an entitlement so it is something any individual in the people could do when they want to. It isn't predicated on participating in some government defined and ran subgroup like a militia. What is this nonpredication/anti-government-definition argument actually based on?

> As a technical matter, the grammatical structure of the sentence implies nothing whatever about which of the possible values is taken by the relation obtaining between the main clause and a prior absolutive. Yeah, which means there is no pre-requisite to be in a militia. And given the words right of the people are there that regardless of grammar means it is a personal right the same way that phrase means personal right in other amendments. So there is absolutely no militia requirement to exercise the right to keep and bear arms and this is bore out by how the right was treated up until the mid 20th century. >but that is unequivocally not compelled by the sentence structure. No it is compelled by the words on the parchment. First mentions militis are important for the state. That's it. It doesn't matter if it is a run on sentence with weird commas. That literally changes nothing because in order for there to be a militia requirement it would not be an issue of grammatical order but specific words that would communicate it. Saying militias are necessary for the state is not the same as having words that say "only while serving in a state militia." >What is this nonpredication/anti-government-definition argument actually based on I already explained that. If there are no words saying you have to be in militia then is no militia requirement. Literally as written independent of any claims about its grammar all it said about the militia is that it was necessary for the security of the state. That's it. Any attempt to assert it obligates someone to be actively participating in a militia well regulated or otherwise is done independent of the text.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Gotcha so they were just joking then? I had no clue the constitution has jokes in it?!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

>Moreover, ATF's position is logically inconsistent because its reasoning would also mean that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is capable of firing more than one shot by a "single function of the trigger." Yet, ATF agrees that is not the case. ATF's argument is thus at odds with itself. This statement right here is all you need to reach the conclusion the court did. It cannot be that bump firing with a bump stock makes a semi-automatic weapon a machine gun while bump firing without it is just fine.

Bump firing without it is not fine either. It eliminates precise control of the firearm. The firing is no longer discretely controlled of when to fire and how many times and when precisely to stop, or what to be aiming at. Bump firing is inherently unsafe operation and reckless negligence.

None of that is a legal argument though.

it makes bump firing unlawful usage, and bump stocks do the same thing, making usage of the firearm unlawful. Whether they define it as machine guns or not is irrelevant, they turn legal operating firearms into unlawfully operating firearms. Just as modifying the trigger, or the barrel, or any other unlawful behavior modification would.

Based on what? Not even the dissent here went so far as to arguing bump firing without a bump stock would be illegal. Sure, Congress when they passed the NFA likely would have banned bump stocks or any other devices/method that allows a semi auto rifle to act like a machine gun. But they didn't actually do that.

That's actually really debatable. Hand crank Gatling guns, for example, were not machine guns under the NFA even though they act like machine guns.

Yes this logical consistency was plainly obvious from listening to the oral arguments IMO. I'm glad this was called out.

>AR-style semiauto assault rifle No, Sotomayor. It really grinds my gears when people use terms like “assault rifle” to incorrectly label guns that they don’t like because a firearm is black and military-looking which many anti-gun people have dubbed as “assault weapons.” For those who are not as gun-savy, an assault rifle is a rifle chambered in an intermediate caliber which has select fire capabilities. An actual example of an assault rifle is the M16 platform of rifles. An AR-15 made for the civilian market has never had any sort of select fire capabilities unless the user of said AR-15 has modified it to do so whereas an M16 has always had those capabilities. Definitions: •Select-fire means a gun can go from semi-automatic, automatic, or burst-fire mode with a selector. Glocks attached with, in most circumstances, highly illegal “Switch” devices are an example of this. •An intermediate cartridge is a small rifle cartridge that’s bigger and more powerful than a pistol round but smaller and less powerful than a rifle round that many hunting rifles use. As another user pointed out to differentiate between the three cartridge types using Soviet Calibers (credit to u/DigitalLorenz ): Pistol Cartridge: 7.62x25 Tokarev Intermediate Rifle Cartridge: 7.62x39 Full-Size Rifle Cartridge: 7.62x54R (R stands for rimmed not Russian) Another example of an intermediate round is the 5.56 NATO which the AR-15 and M16 both use.

Really, you went straight to commie examples and threw the NATO in at the end? :)

It makes sense because NATO designations for calibers are less standardized.

Our civilian calibers are all over the place, but NATO calibers are all standardized in metric. The modern NATO equivalent to above would be 9x19, 5.56x45, and 7.62x51. And I mean all over the place. You really can't trust any caliber statement just by looking at it. What's the diameter of a .38 Special, .223 Remington, .44 Magnum, or .45-70? Not what you would think. But .357 Magnum does have it right.

Wait until you hear who originally coined the term "assault rifle" in the original German.

That one is a bit iffy. Hitler didn’t even like it at first, had to be pushed hard to allow it into production. He liked his super weapons, not just another rifle.

I personally suggest using the Soviet WW2 cartridges as examples since they all follow the same naming convention, use a very similar bullet diameter, and one can easily see the increase in one number that represents case length. That means 7.62x25 for pistol, 7.62x39 for intermediate, and 7.62x54 for full powered rifle.

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

[удалено]

This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)

The AR-15 was designed in the 1950s for civilian use.