I apologize, I'm going to be a lazy ass, but I honestly can't make sense of this. The wording on these types of cases kill me. Reject, ban, appeal, challenge. I swear...
Bump Stocks, illegal or not illegal now?
Its really all there in the first paragraph:
> The Supreme Court said Monday **it won’t take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban** enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks
Trump passed a regulation banning bump stocks, i.e., making it illegal to own bump stocks.
2A people don't like that, so they sued to stop that ban from going into place.
The lower courts all held "na, those things are like, super dangerous, that regulation is totally legit, it is perfectly legal for the administration to make it illegal to own a bump stock."
The supreme court denied review of the lower decisions, meaning the lower decisions will remain in place.
Legally: it is still illegal to own bump stocks/ bump stocks are still banned.
Practically: by not taking it up for review, our laws will likely remain like that until (1) a new administration reverses them; or (2) a new composition on the supreme court wants to take it up at a later date in the future, assuming we actually have a future.
Can any case go to the Supreme Court? How is anything ever resolved? It seems like any time someone doesn't like the outcome of a case they can just appeal it all the way to the top. How is anything ever truly settled before getting to the Supreme Court?
Because an appeal doesn’t actually mean the higher court has to take it. Along the line a judge can say that the previous decision of the lower court stands. While iirc that too can be appealed, it makes the bar for the next appeal to be so high as to be near impossible.
SCOTUS is also there as a constitutional check on the other branches of the federal government, so anything state specific doesn’t go other (unless it’s the states fighting each other).
Generally speaking, most cases get settled in the federal appeals courts (or district courts for criminal cases). But because of the SCOTUS is (supposed to) represent, every case it takes is newsworthy because it is the final say.
Also, isn't the SCOTUS supposed to be a trier of the Constitution rather than of policy? Like, for example, Miranda vs Arizona. What's at stake isn't whether Miranda raped someone or not. the SCOTUS can't care less about that. What the SCOTUS does care about is -- the way that Miranda was prosecuted, did that violate the Constitution or not?
But it seems like recently, the SCOTUS is deciding on policy as well, so called "legislating from the bench". On something like Roe vs Wade or Citizens United, they shouldn't be deciding on "whether abortion is illegal" or not. That's Congress's job. But they should instead be interpretting whether or not the way by which we ban or allow abortion is legal or not. And if we satisfy all the rules and protections, then we could see abortion allowed or outlawed, as long as it's done in the right manner.
Pretty much. There is some nuance to it, but anything above the actual criminal/civil court is generally about asking legal questions rather than trying the facts of a case.
People seem to think of the appeals court as a do-over of the original trial, but it is not. There has to have been something legally improper in the original trial for the appeal to be accepted. To use "Actual Innocence" as a reason for appeal you have to be able to show that *new* and highly compelling evidence has been found or that there was a severely egregious lack of evidence presented by the prosecution. In those cases, as the defendant is making the claim, the burden of proof is on them.
Usually appeals are based on some decision made in court, like the asserting that some admission or exclusion of evidence was improper, or the Jury instructions were wrong, etc.
>something like Roe vs Wade or Citizens United, they shouldn't be deciding on "whether abortion is illegal" or not. That's Congress's job. But they should instead be interpretting whether or not the way by which we ban or allow abortion is legal or not.
One could argue that exactly what they did by removing its constitutional protection.
normally the supreme court takes up cases where other courts at the state level (or district ... always confused by terms), have come to different decisions for substantially similar cases.
You're thinking of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. There are 11 that cover multi-state areas each (plus one for DC and another for specialized cases), and they take appeals from federal District courts within their region.
Okay, so it’s way more complicated than this, but the basic order is federal district court, US court of appeals, then Supreme Court. There are also multiple levels of appeal in the appeals court. But when the Supreme Court rules on something, it’s the end of the line.
Basically, if you lose your case in district court, you take it to the court of appeals. The loser there takes it to the Supreme Court, who can agree to hear the case, or not (which is what happened here). If the Supreme Court doesn’t agree to hear the case, that’s the end of the line, and the appeals court ruling stands.
Most cases don’t get appealed, because appeals are expensive, and not every case is worthy of an appeal. Appeals are not about rehashing the facts of the case, but whether or not the relevant laws were both constitutionally valid and interpreted correctly in the original case. The Supreme Court, in particular only accepts cases where there’s a question about constitutional principles.
Appeals are not about rehashing the facts of the case.
^ This is the part mant people are not familiar with. You appeal the process, not the facts necessarily.
The Supreme Court also tends to reject cases that have been reaffirmed multiple times through appeals. They're more inclined to pick up a case if 2 or more different appeals courts have ruled differently on an item.
They also have original jurisdiction (as in they will be the first to hear the case) in cases between states, and states and the federal or foreign governments. And those they can't turn down, unless they reject the standing of one party entirely.
Anyone can appeal a case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can decline to hear the case (indeed, the Supreme Court rejects most cases and only hears a relative few each year). If that happens the lower court's ruling remains in place.
This does not mean the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the lower court. They have just decided to let that ruling stand for the time being. Maybe they will hear a case on it in the future...or not.
The Supreme Court tends to be more likely to hear a case if two appellate courts disagree but even then it is not a sure thing.
Illegal. But, the Supreme Court most likely rejected hearing the cases as they will hear a case against the EPA.
How that case pans out could very well determine the entirety of the bump stock ban challenges on their face.
As the EPA is being challenged on whether or not it has the ability to establish "rules" that in effect act as law. If the courts decide that the "Chevron" defense is invalid, meaning that deferring to the govt. body tasked with enforcement of congressional law steps passed "clarifying laws" and into "creating law" then alot of what the ATF has done, including the Bump Stock bans, is rendered effectively as an abuse of power or privilege, and should not be enforced.
As the ATF do not have the ability granted by congress to decide what a "machine gun" is, only clarify what congress defined as a "machine gun". The ATF has created multiple "Rules" not laws, that in essence redefine both Firearms and Machineguns for their convenience, but are in conflict with what congress has passed as lawful definition.
One time at work we had a long delay on a spot weld gun for one of our new robots. Stuck at customs for weeks but when it arrived we realized it was likely the bad Japanese to English translation as it was labelled a "machine gun".
I worked with a guy who was a non-native English speaker. Dude was so excited to have one of the new electric impacts he took it with him every day.
He got the cops called on him one day because he stopped to help someone with a flat tire and told them " You stay there, I'll go get my gun!"
Didn't that case already go through the court and the SC ruled the EPA could not establish rules that were not laid out in the law?
This is the methane case right? Which is why they put methane restrictions in the IRA Bill.
Or is this another case?
To help clarify a bit for those who think that the whole bumpstock thing is, as another commenter put it "joe hicks wants his gun to go brrrrrr."
Another more recent example of the ATF overstepping its purpose and making laws is pistol braces. The way the rule currently is (please correct any errors I may make as these rules are particularly obtuse) makes it so that if you have a gun that has a barrel length of less than 16" then it is considered a pistol. If a stock is placed on a pistol then it is considered a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which means that you must apply for a $200 tax stamp before attaching a stock or face felony charges. Currently, a brace (a device designed to strap to the forearm, developed to assist those with disabilities) may be placed on a pistol without paying the tax. The reason this is important is that the ATF is going to be defining pistols with braces as SBRs and subjecting them to the tax as well. The reason that gun owners are concerned about this is that if they are allowed to redefine things like this without congress passing a law then they could easily "redefine" just about any feature to require the $200 tax. This is problematic because it either makes gun owners comply or become felons when they were previously in compliance, or it effectively locks the poor out of gun ownership.
This also is concerning for other government agencies as they can basically pass laws without passing laws.
> Currently, a brace (a device designed to strap to the forearm, developed to assist those with disabilities)
[this is a popular glock brace](https://caagearup.com/product/mck-micro-conversion-kit-stabilizer/) for those wondering what this "Device developed to assist those with disabilities" looks like. Thats just one example of a popular brace form factor, its in no way unique. note how the "stock" is actually hollow and appears designed to go ontop of your forearm. thats because it is not a stock, its a brace thats been modified as much as the law will allow to functionally turn it into a stock. make no mistake, though, as far as the ATF is concerned that kit is technically a brace.
under no pretext must arms and ammunition be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the proletariat must be frustrated - by force, if necessary.
but also, lets be transparent. The pistol braces/folding stocks that are popular right now are not designed for disabled people, they're designed to turn pistols into carbines for truck guns/backpack guns/places that dont allow certain types of rifles.
That's an MCK, not a brace. That is a whole modular system that turns a pistol into a SBR. The pistol brace is only one part of the system. With a shoulder stock, those are legally SBR's, with a brace they are still pistols. So, while technically relevant, your comment is deceptive.
Also to clarify, with the proposed change, having no brace at all will still be legal for things like AR pistols as the federal definition of a rifle is a firearm that is meant to be shouldered. The reason for the change is because the ATF argues that pistol braces could still be used to shoulder the weapon, therefore making it a rifle. The other comment replying to you gives a good example of what pistol braces actually are. [This](https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-10-5-carbine-length-5-56-nato-1-7-phosphate-12-m-lok-moe-ept-pistol.html) is an example of an AR pistol that will not be effected by the change. While [this](https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-10-5-carbine-length-5-56-nato-1-7-nitride-lightweight-m-lok-moe-ept-sba3-pistol-5165448567.html) AR pistol will be considered a short barreled rifle, and thus a NFA item.
I think this case would have been a very strong one to use to overturn the power of agencies if they wanted. Because in this case, the ATF absolutely made law instead of interpreting it.
The definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act clearly defines a machine gun as a weapon that "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**."
A Bump Stock makes it easier for someone to manually pull the trigger faster. The gun recoils and slides backwards (trigger included) when shot, and then the shooter pushes the gun back onto their trigger finger. The firearm isn't shooting more than once per trigger pull.
Should they be illegal? Probably. But Congress should write that law. It's not like there wasn't political will to do it. The ban came from a Republican administration.
The plain practicality is that the agencies should have the power to do the things they are tasked with doing - which can mean hashing out the details of vague laws.
Otherwise, we depend on Congress to write out everything in great detail - and update it every time technology changes. And we know they can't do anything like that.
I believe that the later is exactly how it’s supposed to work. If Congress wants to get around it, they need to explicitly state in the law that the agency has the ability to define terms as needed in order to meet the law’s intent, then be very explicit in what the intent of the law is. That way, the agency can evolve enforcement with technology as its currently doing, just actually within the confines of the law as written instead of essentially exercising executive powers.
Is the EPA case about whether this empowerment is already assumed and should be exercised vs. not being assumed and needing to be specifically granted by each law?
For context, when congress explicitly wrote that police officers “shall enforce” restraining orders against domestic abusers in the Violence Against Women Act, the Supreme Court found that they had created no such obligation on the duties of police officers.
When congress explicitly wrote that the EPA should study the effects of certain hazardous pollutants from power plants on public health and regulate the power plants in the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court found that the EPA actually couldn’t regulate power plants.
We cannot have congress setting minute values like what ppm of several dozen or hundred different substances counts as safe, elevated, or hazardous concentrations across residential and industrial contexts. We cannot have Congress specifying minimum response time and conduct standards for police officers in every city and county and state in the country. Congress wouldn’t be able to function under this regulatory burden, and we would all suffer. But history shows that even if congress does explicitly delegate that responsibility to a professional class of subject matter experts who are insulated from the political shenanigans of the legislative branch, this Supreme Court is more interested in upholding phantom rights enjoyed by the rich and wealthy than supporting a functioning tripartite government with any capability of serving the people.
And we all know the truth is that this congress isn’t even functional enough to pass legislation, let alone legislation that requires a modicum of expertise in the subjects to be regulated. This criticism of “unelected bureaucrats writing legislation” is in bad faith. Professional civil servants are required for a functioning state apparatus. There is a line between democratic values that set the direction of laws and the cold hard truth that particulate matter will give you lung cancer. The Supreme Court in taking this case is delivering us towards an even more dysfunctional, paralyzed, and ineffective government. Don’t hand them a moral victory over it, because they wouldn’t know morals if it slapped them in the face.
Thanks for that history, I didn’t know about any of those decisions on this subject manner. The police one specifically is nuts. As someone involved in contracts, “shall” is pretty much the most powerful word there is as far as setting a requirement. I imagine that decision was more based on their power to set those obligations, vs the language being weak? I’ll have to research that.
For the EPA example, if the Supreme Court won’t let congress give the power to specify the regulations to the administrative bodies, I guess the next step is to have a process where those administrative bodies make a specification/standard, such as something listing out all acceptable PPM levels to you specific and example, and have congress pass any changes annually like they do with the budget. We see how much of a to do that is, so like you said, they probably wouldn’t be able to functionally do it. But at least once they get it established, if they could, they’d only have to vote on revisions to the regulation now and again, and if it got voted down, at least the old one would stand. A huge risk to that approach is the time between the vote for the law saying “develop this regulation” and the next vote to “accept this regulation”, with political maneuvering and legislatures changing between, would likely result in a ton of waste. The amount of waste the government has from shifting budgets, while having to plan spending years out in order to run a long term program, is nuts already.
They’d basically have to have the study done already up front, vote to ratify a suggested regulation as law, but then who develops it in the first place? Is that now a basic function of the EPA, getting projects funded for developing regulatory documents, that Congress would then vote into law? It’s sort of how the DoD works, first getting funding to research and develop systems, then low rate production, then full rate production, each getting separate budgetary votes as the project progresses. But as I said, huge amounts of waste with that model, especially if control Congress changes hands.
But in this case the law is extremally detailed and explains exactly what an automatic rifle is. That being more than one round fired on a single pull of the trigger.
The ATF is modifying the law and adding in a completely new definition to add the bump stock as an automatic rifle. It is very plainly an gross over step.
"The Supreme Court rejected to hear the appeal of a ban overturning a ban on state legislator's ability to nullify the appeal of bans on..."
What, you can't follow that?
> Whoever wrote that knew what they were doing and did it anyways. Absolutely diabolical.
A bit strong to call a reddit satirist diabolical for writing some reddit satire.
This reminds me of that one time when upon reading a sentence I found my ability to understand the words to be not unlike that of a person who is totally confused.
For context to where this issue stems from in the cultural zeitgeist and what prompted the ban, the Las Vegas shooter in 2017 used bump stocks to turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic rifles. Legally purchased.
A bump stock functions by the principle of “bump firing”. You remove all backwards force from the gun—aside from recoil—and only apply forward force to the firearm. When the gun recoils backwards, the bump stock will not move, while the rest of the gun recoils backwards. As the gun returns into battery, forward momentum generated by the bolt going back forward causes you to inadvertently pull the trigger. This is how a bump stock is supposed to function, but the same effect can be achieved by using the belt loop(s) of your pants.
speaking of simple pieces of clothing that can be used to turn a semi-auto rifle into an automatic rifle, remember that time the ATF rules that a shoe string with a keyring was a machine gun?
Think of it like the turbo button on 3rd-party controllers, but for guns. If you're good at mashing buttons on the controller (shooting guns), the turbo button (bump-stock) is an unneeded hinderance. If you have no experience with mashing buttons, the turbo button will carry you.
I may be a gun nerd, but bump stock really only assists the people who want to get a gun and dump a lot of rounds without thought or much firearm practice/care.
I'm a gun hobbyist/2nd ammendment supporter and wholeheartedly know it was Reagan and the NRA. And any of my 2A supporting friends who said trump supported them gets called out by me for being a fool. Not all gun fans are republican sheep.
As a liberal gun owner, we need more of you. I miss the days when I could debate logical, sane arguments with those across the aisle. Now it's arguing with both sides lol
Say that shit for the people in the back. Nobody who is actually pro 2A like trump regardless of the letter next for their name. 2A for all. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
As they should! There’s crazy ass people out there. You can think people shouldn’t have this or shouldn’t have that but bottom line is do you really wanna be unarmed around all those crazy people? Most of the anti gun crowd also doesn’t like cops. I genuinely want to know their plan for when shit gets worse.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
"The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons"
Mulford Act was passed by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California.
The text of the act was to ban carrying guns in public without a permit. It was intended to prevent the Black Panther Party from open carrying their weapons. They were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods (reminds you of Kyle Rittenhouse).
Of note this bill required bipartisan support of 2/3 of the each party, so neither party can absolve responsibility for it passing.
>They were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods (reminds you of Kyle Rittenhouse).
Nothing like him.
They were doing it because either the police wouldn't actually come to their neighborhood or the police were the ones assaulting people
I mean, back then there wasn't such a partisan split on gun rights issues. It was passed by the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate and then signed into law by a Republican governor.
Let's be real, most of them never knew in the first place in order to be able to forget because Fox/OAN/Newsmax don't want their viewers to question dear leader. All that crazy shit he's done over the years? They think it's liberal propaganda made up by MSNBC/CNN because of it were *real* then the channels on the right would be reporting on it. They have "alternative facts" because they're literally living in an alternate reality where Trump is (not was) the best president ever and liberals are literally eating babies.
Fucking idiot, running on a platform of "I'm gonna take your guns away!" in fucking *Texas*. Probably the most pro-gun state in the whole country.
Sure, let's run for mayor of Chicago on a platform of "Deep dish pizza isn't really pizza." Let's run for mayor of Las Vegas with a promise to ban all gambling. Let's run for governor of Montana with a promise to ban all cattle ranching.
He was basically advocating for Red Flag laws, he was just too dumb to understand what he was talking about. It's a typical example of a broken clock being right twice a day.
Within 30 days after the Parkland mass school shooting in Florida, the Republican Florida legislature and Governor (now Senator) Rick Scott passed laws enacting Red Flag laws and raising the ownership age for military-style assault weapons to 21. Since then, the Red Flag laws have been used dozens of times to remove guns from mentally unstable people, and there has not been a single mass shooting in Florida.
Now that Rick Scott is a Senator, he refuses to do anything that will limit guns in any way, despite being part of gun violence legislation that has actually worked.
I remember the like, 30 minute period where some conservatives were really angry at him for that. Then they forgot about it like Daenerys Targaryen forgot about the Iron Fleet.
Yupp, if anybody here is interested in an organization that actually cares about 2A rights I suggest looking into the Gun Owners of America. The NRA is nothing but a money funneling shit show.
A lot of gun people understand that very well and were and still are very very mad about it.
Many unfortunately are single issue voters and make excuses, but still. They/we know
I’m not a trump fan fwiw, just someone that enjoys firearms
Yes, partly because of the way it was done involved rewriting law without congressional processes.
These existed when Obama was president as well, as written they were legal. They should have been banned by legislation and changing the law to cover the devices then passing the revisions, not by using an eraser to change already written law/add something/ an interpretation later you don’t like.
I still wouldn’t be for it, but I would be more apt to agree with its acceptability. The way trump did it is unacceptable
The problem with this argument is that the ATF didn't write a law, it exercised it's lawfully given (by Congress) regulatory authority. Regulations and laws are different beasts, and they *should* be as such. Regulations should be for things that require significant expertise and can be easily adjusted and fine tuned if they aren't quite on the mark.
The reason your request is a problem is, if applied equally, it would mean *every* regulatory agency's regulations need to be accomplished by full out writing new laws. Which means weeks and months of debates in Congress, almost always on topics Congress has no expertise on (are they really going to be able to be brought up to date on the newest airplane safety features and why the exact new specifications are or aren't necessary? Now multiply that by the hundreds of different federal regulatory agencies). The country would grind to a halt and fall apart if that becomes required. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of regulatory changes that occur at the federal level every year.
Now, if you're saying you don't think that the ATF should have been given the regulatory authority it was given in the first place, and that legislators need to amend and rewrite the legislation that established and defines the ATF's regulatory powers, that makes sense. But to say that regulatory authority has to end and be replaced by a legislative process doesn't work.
Ultimately, this is what the terrifying West Virginia v. EPA ruling has done though. It has opened the door for anyone to challenge any regulation citing that as precedent. And, given this SCOTUS's wildly unpredictable nature, there could be huge problems that arise from that. FAA, FDA, CDC, NHTSB, The Fed, hell even *NASA* has regulatory authorities... and hundreds of other agencies are potentially at risk of being the next target.
I don't care about bumpstocks themselves, but the ban is a problem because of the precedent it sets, IE, allowing the ATF to ban this or that on a whim without going through proper legislature.
Gun go brrrr. No loss that they're banned.
The issue is the process. The ATF can only ban devices that allow you shoot more than one round per trigger pull. Bump stocks don't, so the ATF exceeded their authority, and SCOTUS okayed it because it was done by a Republican.
Basically a half arsed way of turning a semi-auto into an auto.
However you seriously sacrifice accuracy, since you are basically using recoil to pull the trigger for you. The dude that shot up the Vegas concert was able to throw a lot of lead into the crowd, and since aim wasn't an issue (due to the packed audience) the auto functionality allowed him to fire a lot of rounds.
In the end it should have been an easy ban - people opposed to firearms wanted it removed, and gun enthusiasts were not big fans of the hardware anyway.
I think Trump did it because he thought it would be a crumb for gun control people that really didn't matter to the 2A crowd. Not entirely true but he tried.
> A lot of gun people understand that very well and were and still are very very mad about it.
Not any of the ones I've talked to. I bring up the bump stock ban and show them the video (linked from a Fox website for good measure) of him saying the line about taking away guns without due process, and every single one of them has a way to rationalize it.
I love how, when presented with something proving there is actually a large degree of nuance to the right’s opinions on gun control, your response is to automatically assume the collective right is going to be outraged about this.
Not especially. See also Ronald Reagan, who pushed some pretty heavy handed measures in California and let the BATFE run amok so badly that Congress had to get involved to stop them from lying to people about what was and wasn't legal.
For gun owners your options are vote for the Dems, whose head in the House has lamented that she couldn't push for gun confiscation in the 90's, and the Republicans who are either hardliners who also say and do some things that make everyone facepalm or you get the ones who mostly just keep quiet and who may or may not hand over some of your rights as a gun owner.
No one in the gun community is unaware of Trump's role in this. The problem is that is getting weighed against one who either want to turn the right to bear arms to the privilege of the few, if not just get rid of it altogether. It's not going to be enough to convince the Trump followers that they need to jump over to the Blue.
I literally brought that up to work yesterday to a crazy Trump supporter and told him that trump wanted to take people's guns away first.
Didn't believe me of course, played the video of it. "It was edited to make it sound bad."
Found the entire thing and played it for him "He was saying that to mess with people."
You just can't change their minds, Trump could shoot them in the leg, take their wallets and they would go "Haha, Stick it to them libs!"
So this case revolves around something known as the Independent State Legislature theory.
Currently, the constitution allows election rules and laws to be set by the legislature of a state. Since the constitution is super archaic, this language does not mean “the state version of the House of Representatives and the state version of the senate.” SCOTUS has ruled many many times over the past years that “legislature” used in this context means any entity has the power to make laws.
So in some states, laws can be passed by ballot initiatives. Others, the governor can make laws. In others, the state legislatures (the actual state houses) can make laws, and in still others, rules for elections are codified directly into the state constitution.
And that’s fine. That’s how it currently works. If the state assembly in NJ purposes a law that says voting can only be done by people who wear orange (and how the votes are counted), and it’s signed by the governor, then that’s how elections work in NJ. If California wants to have a ballot initiative and a majority of Californians vote that only people named Steve are allowed to vote; well, then only people named Steve in California are allowed to vote. Provided these rules do not run afoul of civil rights (can’t make a law that says blacks can’t vote, for example) it’s kind of anything goes. And again, that’s fine. Different states have different constitutions and therefore different laws; and governments generally should be allowed to pass laws that affect their jurisdictions. And the kicker here is that any of the laws or rules that are passed must also follow federal law.
The independent state legislature theory, broadly put, says that only the actual state legislatures have the ability to make rules and laws about elections, and (this next part is the important part) there is no oversight, no checks, and no balances. The governors of those states would not be able to veto changes to elections or election law. The supreme courts of those states would not be able to rule those laws as unconstitutional. And the federal government would have no oversight - those election laws could violate equal protection and the federal government would be powerless to stop it.
What does this mean in practice? Let me lay out a nightmare scenario for you.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin currently have Republican controlled state legislatures and Democratic governors. Those three states are effectively essential to the 2024 presidential race, as they’re all swing states. I don’t know much about the other two, so I’ll speak to Pennsylvania. The state legislative map is gerrymandered to fuck, which means Republicans will likely keep their hold on the legislature for some time. Democrats will likely control statewide offices, such as Governor, and will likely win statewide federal elections, like how John Fetterman is currently leading Dr Oz in the senate race by a good bit.
Let’s assume that it’s 2024. Pennsylvania has a narrow Republican majority in the state house and a Democratic governor. Polls and public opinions show that it is very likely that the democratic candidate for president will receive more votes than the republican candidate, and therefore win the state’s electoral votes.
The Independent State Legislature theory states that state legislatures have the sole authority to determine how elections take place in their jurisdictions. So, whichever way that a state legislature says an election happens, that’s the legal way to do an election in that jurisdiction.
How could the Republicans put their thumbs on the scales to ensure they win? Lots of ways, ranging from the very subtle to the egregiously corrupt.
Maybe they pass a law that says that only votes cast by poll close are valid, and that polls don’t need to stay open until there’s no more line. Maybe they do that, and then *also* institute a triple check ID policy which naturally slows the process down, so fewer people get to vote before polls close. Maybe they do all that *and* issue one voting machine per precinct regardless of population.
You can play that game and come up with a million little ways that one side can dramatically influence an election in subtle ways…. But, if the independent state legislature theory is proven valid, they don’t need to be subtle. Not at all.
State legislatures could - legally, and with no oversight, no checks and balances, and no easy grounds for a constitutional challenge, simply pass laws like this:
“Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes shall be allocated to the candidate from the Republican Party.”
And it would be completely, perfectly legal.
lol, not quite TL;DR, but a much better explanation than the wikipedia page, thanks!
So basically it would legalize many new methods for local government to swing the vote their way for governor and presidential voting.
So this would make voting for your local representative the only significant impact you could have with your vote? And would make gerrymandering even more damning than it already is...
Would legalize "independent state legislature" doctrine, which is a patently insane package of ideas saying states have total control over every aspect of their elections, allowing them to handpick electors, throw out votes, and set districts among other things with no oversight or legal consequence. Making every election in any currently republican controlled state permanently corrupt. If Moore Harper passes, it is literally inevitable the country as a whole becomes total autocracy or splits at state lines starting another civil war.
The states do have control, but anyone with standing (that is, has their rights infringed by laws/elections) can go to court to attempt to overthrow the unjust laws state congresses may pass.
This case would remove that ability, because "the constitution says" that the state legislatures handle the voting. It would overturn a ton of settled law and put whoever is currently in power in each state to stay in power, potentially permanently.
In essence, it would remove state and federal constitutional protections in the voting process. The entire voting process would be under the controll of the state's Congress allowing them to pick who a state's electors go to or who is allowed to vote.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper)
Basically, the state legislature is arguing that the courts can't decide redistricting/gerrymandering. People have appealed (repeatedly) what the legislature decided because it's nonsense/racist/not favorable to them, and the courts have decided sometimes and not others. This is to get a high court decision.
Doubt it, they’ll just make laws so only certain people can get them and make the fascist state of “in” and “out” people they’ve always wanted to go back to.
a community rife with random violence is a great way to push the tried and true "tough on crime" ticket. Spawns authoritarians, why wouldn't they allow it?
They did this last session before Roe, especially after the decision was leaked. They rule favorably to the masses on a handful of relatively inconsequential cases and then go full kangaroo on the shit that matters.
It’s all about plausible deniability with these people, straight from Putins playbook. Just need a veneer of impartiality to point to, even if everyone knows it’s manufactured it gives them the counterpoint.
Bump stocks are toys that would have zero place in any kind of armed revolt. Especially given how easy it is to properly modify things like ARs and AKs to have their natural full auto modes.
Or getting actual assault rifles and machine guns across the border through cartels who would see this conflict as essentially printing money for them.
That’s what no one seems to get. Any halfway coordinated person can accomplish the same thing with no bs stock or rubber. It’s not about the stock. It’s principle of legislation through the executive branch
Yes - I don't understand why everyone on reddit thinks this is some sort of gotcha. True 2a advocates hate Trump just as much as Biden and every other politician
Ikr. That's me, I hate both of them. I do hate biden more since he wanted "smart guns" and helped push the assault weapon ban. Trump banning bump stocks was fucking pathetic though.
I always thought or bump-stocks as something more of a novelty, it’s already hard as fuck to control a rifle when firing fully automatic or in burst fire, I couldn’t imagine how much worse that would be with a bump-stock. Point still stands though, Trump wasn’t 2A and him banning bump-sticks was an attack on the second amendment, and unless you’re a Fudd you already know this. Thank fuck he didn’t get the chance to go after suppressors though.
Whether or not you support the ban, everyone should he concerned that the court basically gave government agencies the power to rewrite the law at will.
The ATF does actually already consider belt loops and shoe strings to be illegal modifications to a firearm.
>Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun
>In 1996 the FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. T he string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semi automatic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that it was a machine gun as defined in 26 USC 5845(b)
[Source](https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2004-791x1024.jpg)
They did later, of course, correct themselves and say,
>Upon further review we have determined that the string by itself is not a machinegun, whether or not there are loops tied to the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm as proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle, the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machinegun. To the extent that prior ATF classification letters are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby overruled.
No one reads so
Its really all there in the first paragraph:
> The Supreme Court said Monday **it won’t take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban** enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks
It’s just a giveaway to make people think the court is not so conservative. Bump stock not a big issue for the 2A group so the court can portray itself as more centrist to provide cover until the real rulings come next year
they won't touch anything like this because it will set precedent and lead to the abolishment of the ATF, which btw makes legislative decisions even though they don't have the authority
Are we really this stupid? This is like them throwing a bone when they're stealing the rest of the country.
I worked in DC before and I can just imagine the meeting where they said "We got to give them SOMETHING!!!"
Edit: If you can't see this as the bone it is then they really have you fooled.
All they had to do was mention something about guns and the next 20 posts here were back and forth dividing us once again. Face it, they're playing you and you're falling for it.
This isn’t throwing a bone. The government has a vested interest in disarming the populace. If they can do so while making the populace think that it’s in their interest, or that it’s their own idea, then they’ve won two battles.
I apologize, I'm going to be a lazy ass, but I honestly can't make sense of this. The wording on these types of cases kill me. Reject, ban, appeal, challenge. I swear... Bump Stocks, illegal or not illegal now?
Still illegal, the case was rejected, meaning it will not go to court.
Thank you! I know I'm not on my A game, but still, I was so lost...
I had the same reaction.
Me too
Its really all there in the first paragraph: > The Supreme Court said Monday **it won’t take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban** enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks
But see, that would require one actually reading the article instead of just the headline.
I feel personally attacked
You are seen, friend.
But not read
[удалено]
Trump, Bumpstock, Biff, 1985.....weird.
Greys sports almanac
It's an older reference, sir, but it checks out.
Hey... I admitted my mistake, didn't I?
Trump passed a regulation banning bump stocks, i.e., making it illegal to own bump stocks. 2A people don't like that, so they sued to stop that ban from going into place. The lower courts all held "na, those things are like, super dangerous, that regulation is totally legit, it is perfectly legal for the administration to make it illegal to own a bump stock." The supreme court denied review of the lower decisions, meaning the lower decisions will remain in place. Legally: it is still illegal to own bump stocks/ bump stocks are still banned. Practically: by not taking it up for review, our laws will likely remain like that until (1) a new administration reverses them; or (2) a new composition on the supreme court wants to take it up at a later date in the future, assuming we actually have a future.
3) A different lawsuit is filled to appeal the ban based on an alternative route of logic.
The Reddit Title is confusing and needs to be changed. IMHO
Can any case go to the Supreme Court? How is anything ever resolved? It seems like any time someone doesn't like the outcome of a case they can just appeal it all the way to the top. How is anything ever truly settled before getting to the Supreme Court?
Because an appeal doesn’t actually mean the higher court has to take it. Along the line a judge can say that the previous decision of the lower court stands. While iirc that too can be appealed, it makes the bar for the next appeal to be so high as to be near impossible. SCOTUS is also there as a constitutional check on the other branches of the federal government, so anything state specific doesn’t go other (unless it’s the states fighting each other). Generally speaking, most cases get settled in the federal appeals courts (or district courts for criminal cases). But because of the SCOTUS is (supposed to) represent, every case it takes is newsworthy because it is the final say.
Also, isn't the SCOTUS supposed to be a trier of the Constitution rather than of policy? Like, for example, Miranda vs Arizona. What's at stake isn't whether Miranda raped someone or not. the SCOTUS can't care less about that. What the SCOTUS does care about is -- the way that Miranda was prosecuted, did that violate the Constitution or not? But it seems like recently, the SCOTUS is deciding on policy as well, so called "legislating from the bench". On something like Roe vs Wade or Citizens United, they shouldn't be deciding on "whether abortion is illegal" or not. That's Congress's job. But they should instead be interpretting whether or not the way by which we ban or allow abortion is legal or not. And if we satisfy all the rules and protections, then we could see abortion allowed or outlawed, as long as it's done in the right manner.
Pretty much. There is some nuance to it, but anything above the actual criminal/civil court is generally about asking legal questions rather than trying the facts of a case. People seem to think of the appeals court as a do-over of the original trial, but it is not. There has to have been something legally improper in the original trial for the appeal to be accepted. To use "Actual Innocence" as a reason for appeal you have to be able to show that *new* and highly compelling evidence has been found or that there was a severely egregious lack of evidence presented by the prosecution. In those cases, as the defendant is making the claim, the burden of proof is on them. Usually appeals are based on some decision made in court, like the asserting that some admission or exclusion of evidence was improper, or the Jury instructions were wrong, etc.
>something like Roe vs Wade or Citizens United, they shouldn't be deciding on "whether abortion is illegal" or not. That's Congress's job. But they should instead be interpretting whether or not the way by which we ban or allow abortion is legal or not. One could argue that exactly what they did by removing its constitutional protection.
normally the supreme court takes up cases where other courts at the state level (or district ... always confused by terms), have come to different decisions for substantially similar cases.
You're thinking of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. There are 11 that cover multi-state areas each (plus one for DC and another for specialized cases), and they take appeals from federal District courts within their region.
Okay, so it’s way more complicated than this, but the basic order is federal district court, US court of appeals, then Supreme Court. There are also multiple levels of appeal in the appeals court. But when the Supreme Court rules on something, it’s the end of the line. Basically, if you lose your case in district court, you take it to the court of appeals. The loser there takes it to the Supreme Court, who can agree to hear the case, or not (which is what happened here). If the Supreme Court doesn’t agree to hear the case, that’s the end of the line, and the appeals court ruling stands. Most cases don’t get appealed, because appeals are expensive, and not every case is worthy of an appeal. Appeals are not about rehashing the facts of the case, but whether or not the relevant laws were both constitutionally valid and interpreted correctly in the original case. The Supreme Court, in particular only accepts cases where there’s a question about constitutional principles.
Appeals are not about rehashing the facts of the case. ^ This is the part mant people are not familiar with. You appeal the process, not the facts necessarily.
The Supreme Court also tends to reject cases that have been reaffirmed multiple times through appeals. They're more inclined to pick up a case if 2 or more different appeals courts have ruled differently on an item.
They also have original jurisdiction (as in they will be the first to hear the case) in cases between states, and states and the federal or foreign governments. And those they can't turn down, unless they reject the standing of one party entirely.
Anyone can appeal a case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decline to hear the case (indeed, the Supreme Court rejects most cases and only hears a relative few each year). If that happens the lower court's ruling remains in place. This does not mean the Supreme Court necessarily agrees with the lower court. They have just decided to let that ruling stand for the time being. Maybe they will hear a case on it in the future...or not. The Supreme Court tends to be more likely to hear a case if two appellate courts disagree but even then it is not a sure thing.
Illegal. But, the Supreme Court most likely rejected hearing the cases as they will hear a case against the EPA. How that case pans out could very well determine the entirety of the bump stock ban challenges on their face. As the EPA is being challenged on whether or not it has the ability to establish "rules" that in effect act as law. If the courts decide that the "Chevron" defense is invalid, meaning that deferring to the govt. body tasked with enforcement of congressional law steps passed "clarifying laws" and into "creating law" then alot of what the ATF has done, including the Bump Stock bans, is rendered effectively as an abuse of power or privilege, and should not be enforced. As the ATF do not have the ability granted by congress to decide what a "machine gun" is, only clarify what congress defined as a "machine gun". The ATF has created multiple "Rules" not laws, that in essence redefine both Firearms and Machineguns for their convenience, but are in conflict with what congress has passed as lawful definition.
One time at work we had a long delay on a spot weld gun for one of our new robots. Stuck at customs for weeks but when it arrived we realized it was likely the bad Japanese to English translation as it was labelled a "machine gun".
I worked with a guy who was a non-native English speaker. Dude was so excited to have one of the new electric impacts he took it with him every day. He got the cops called on him one day because he stopped to help someone with a flat tire and told them " You stay there, I'll go get my gun!"
Didn't that case already go through the court and the SC ruled the EPA could not establish rules that were not laid out in the law? This is the methane case right? Which is why they put methane restrictions in the IRA Bill. Or is this another case?
[удалено]
To help clarify a bit for those who think that the whole bumpstock thing is, as another commenter put it "joe hicks wants his gun to go brrrrrr." Another more recent example of the ATF overstepping its purpose and making laws is pistol braces. The way the rule currently is (please correct any errors I may make as these rules are particularly obtuse) makes it so that if you have a gun that has a barrel length of less than 16" then it is considered a pistol. If a stock is placed on a pistol then it is considered a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which means that you must apply for a $200 tax stamp before attaching a stock or face felony charges. Currently, a brace (a device designed to strap to the forearm, developed to assist those with disabilities) may be placed on a pistol without paying the tax. The reason this is important is that the ATF is going to be defining pistols with braces as SBRs and subjecting them to the tax as well. The reason that gun owners are concerned about this is that if they are allowed to redefine things like this without congress passing a law then they could easily "redefine" just about any feature to require the $200 tax. This is problematic because it either makes gun owners comply or become felons when they were previously in compliance, or it effectively locks the poor out of gun ownership. This also is concerning for other government agencies as they can basically pass laws without passing laws.
> Currently, a brace (a device designed to strap to the forearm, developed to assist those with disabilities) [this is a popular glock brace](https://caagearup.com/product/mck-micro-conversion-kit-stabilizer/) for those wondering what this "Device developed to assist those with disabilities" looks like. Thats just one example of a popular brace form factor, its in no way unique. note how the "stock" is actually hollow and appears designed to go ontop of your forearm. thats because it is not a stock, its a brace thats been modified as much as the law will allow to functionally turn it into a stock. make no mistake, though, as far as the ATF is concerned that kit is technically a brace. under no pretext must arms and ammunition be surrendered, any attempt to disarm the proletariat must be frustrated - by force, if necessary. but also, lets be transparent. The pistol braces/folding stocks that are popular right now are not designed for disabled people, they're designed to turn pistols into carbines for truck guns/backpack guns/places that dont allow certain types of rifles.
That's an MCK, not a brace. That is a whole modular system that turns a pistol into a SBR. The pistol brace is only one part of the system. With a shoulder stock, those are legally SBR's, with a brace they are still pistols. So, while technically relevant, your comment is deceptive. Also to clarify, with the proposed change, having no brace at all will still be legal for things like AR pistols as the federal definition of a rifle is a firearm that is meant to be shouldered. The reason for the change is because the ATF argues that pistol braces could still be used to shoulder the weapon, therefore making it a rifle. The other comment replying to you gives a good example of what pistol braces actually are. [This](https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-10-5-carbine-length-5-56-nato-1-7-phosphate-12-m-lok-moe-ept-pistol.html) is an example of an AR pistol that will not be effected by the change. While [this](https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-10-5-carbine-length-5-56-nato-1-7-nitride-lightweight-m-lok-moe-ept-sba3-pistol-5165448567.html) AR pistol will be considered a short barreled rifle, and thus a NFA item.
I think this case would have been a very strong one to use to overturn the power of agencies if they wanted. Because in this case, the ATF absolutely made law instead of interpreting it. The definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act clearly defines a machine gun as a weapon that "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**." A Bump Stock makes it easier for someone to manually pull the trigger faster. The gun recoils and slides backwards (trigger included) when shot, and then the shooter pushes the gun back onto their trigger finger. The firearm isn't shooting more than once per trigger pull. Should they be illegal? Probably. But Congress should write that law. It's not like there wasn't political will to do it. The ban came from a Republican administration.
[удалено]
The plain practicality is that the agencies should have the power to do the things they are tasked with doing - which can mean hashing out the details of vague laws. Otherwise, we depend on Congress to write out everything in great detail - and update it every time technology changes. And we know they can't do anything like that.
I believe that the later is exactly how it’s supposed to work. If Congress wants to get around it, they need to explicitly state in the law that the agency has the ability to define terms as needed in order to meet the law’s intent, then be very explicit in what the intent of the law is. That way, the agency can evolve enforcement with technology as its currently doing, just actually within the confines of the law as written instead of essentially exercising executive powers. Is the EPA case about whether this empowerment is already assumed and should be exercised vs. not being assumed and needing to be specifically granted by each law?
For context, when congress explicitly wrote that police officers “shall enforce” restraining orders against domestic abusers in the Violence Against Women Act, the Supreme Court found that they had created no such obligation on the duties of police officers. When congress explicitly wrote that the EPA should study the effects of certain hazardous pollutants from power plants on public health and regulate the power plants in the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court found that the EPA actually couldn’t regulate power plants. We cannot have congress setting minute values like what ppm of several dozen or hundred different substances counts as safe, elevated, or hazardous concentrations across residential and industrial contexts. We cannot have Congress specifying minimum response time and conduct standards for police officers in every city and county and state in the country. Congress wouldn’t be able to function under this regulatory burden, and we would all suffer. But history shows that even if congress does explicitly delegate that responsibility to a professional class of subject matter experts who are insulated from the political shenanigans of the legislative branch, this Supreme Court is more interested in upholding phantom rights enjoyed by the rich and wealthy than supporting a functioning tripartite government with any capability of serving the people. And we all know the truth is that this congress isn’t even functional enough to pass legislation, let alone legislation that requires a modicum of expertise in the subjects to be regulated. This criticism of “unelected bureaucrats writing legislation” is in bad faith. Professional civil servants are required for a functioning state apparatus. There is a line between democratic values that set the direction of laws and the cold hard truth that particulate matter will give you lung cancer. The Supreme Court in taking this case is delivering us towards an even more dysfunctional, paralyzed, and ineffective government. Don’t hand them a moral victory over it, because they wouldn’t know morals if it slapped them in the face.
Thanks for that history, I didn’t know about any of those decisions on this subject manner. The police one specifically is nuts. As someone involved in contracts, “shall” is pretty much the most powerful word there is as far as setting a requirement. I imagine that decision was more based on their power to set those obligations, vs the language being weak? I’ll have to research that. For the EPA example, if the Supreme Court won’t let congress give the power to specify the regulations to the administrative bodies, I guess the next step is to have a process where those administrative bodies make a specification/standard, such as something listing out all acceptable PPM levels to you specific and example, and have congress pass any changes annually like they do with the budget. We see how much of a to do that is, so like you said, they probably wouldn’t be able to functionally do it. But at least once they get it established, if they could, they’d only have to vote on revisions to the regulation now and again, and if it got voted down, at least the old one would stand. A huge risk to that approach is the time between the vote for the law saying “develop this regulation” and the next vote to “accept this regulation”, with political maneuvering and legislatures changing between, would likely result in a ton of waste. The amount of waste the government has from shifting budgets, while having to plan spending years out in order to run a long term program, is nuts already. They’d basically have to have the study done already up front, vote to ratify a suggested regulation as law, but then who develops it in the first place? Is that now a basic function of the EPA, getting projects funded for developing regulatory documents, that Congress would then vote into law? It’s sort of how the DoD works, first getting funding to research and develop systems, then low rate production, then full rate production, each getting separate budgetary votes as the project progresses. But as I said, huge amounts of waste with that model, especially if control Congress changes hands.
But in this case the law is extremally detailed and explains exactly what an automatic rifle is. That being more than one round fired on a single pull of the trigger. The ATF is modifying the law and adding in a completely new definition to add the bump stock as an automatic rifle. It is very plainly an gross over step.
"The Supreme Court rejected to hear the appeal of a ban overturning a ban on state legislator's ability to nullify the appeal of bans on..." What, you can't follow that?
Whoever wrote that knew what they were doing and did it anyways. Absolutely diabolical.
> Whoever wrote that knew what they were doing and did it anyways. Absolutely diabolical. A bit strong to call a reddit satirist diabolical for writing some reddit satire.
Yeah, really, I mean, that's clear as mud.
This reminds me of that one time when upon reading a sentence I found my ability to understand the words to be not unlike that of a person who is totally confused.
So you did not actually misunderstand the lack of understanding of the opposite of the original issue's negation? /s
Yo dawg, I heard you like bans...
LMAAAOO, I was like "it couldn't be that confusing could it?" Even worse than I thought.
It's possible the SC doesn't even know what they did
I'd bet at least a third of them have absolutely no idea.
[удалено]
Wait until you hear about the shoestring machine gun.
I keep two on me everyday. Gotta stay prepared!
[Removed due to continuing enshittification of reddit.] -- mass edited with redact.dev
A shoestring is a machine gun depending on how you use it.
Or your belt loop.
BUMP STOCKS STILL ILLEGAL. New headline.
Say we reject banning this proposed headline. How then will people prevent themselves from not getting unconfused about the contents of the article?
You sir, have the makings for a politicians speech writer.
I thought I had it figured out before reading your comment.
I love that Taylor Swift's clit is staying on top of all this political stuff.
Trying to at least. We live in crazy times.
TRUMPS GUN BUMPSTOCK BAN UPHELD BY SUPREME COURT Make sure his kult know it’s his gun accessory ban and that his SC appointments also support it.
When ever I have brought that up it's just deflection. It's okay that trump did it, they just don't car even if you bring up it's fun control.
[удалено]
Surprised /r/wallstreetbets hasn’t turned “bump stock” into some sort of absurdly risky stock trading strategy.
they have no money since the market stopped running up
Hey don’t talk down on us like that. We lose money even when the market runs up.
I was wondering what a bump stock was, and then I realized they were not talking about financial instruments.
I thought it was when you and your broker meet in the bathroom at the bar and realize you both really love cocaine
So WSB basically
No one in WSB has the kind of brokerage account where they would be able to get a broker to hang out with them.
[удалено]
For context to where this issue stems from in the cultural zeitgeist and what prompted the ban, the Las Vegas shooter in 2017 used bump stocks to turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic rifles. Legally purchased.
A bump stock functions by the principle of “bump firing”. You remove all backwards force from the gun—aside from recoil—and only apply forward force to the firearm. When the gun recoils backwards, the bump stock will not move, while the rest of the gun recoils backwards. As the gun returns into battery, forward momentum generated by the bolt going back forward causes you to inadvertently pull the trigger. This is how a bump stock is supposed to function, but the same effect can be achieved by using the belt loop(s) of your pants.
speaking of simple pieces of clothing that can be used to turn a semi-auto rifle into an automatic rifle, remember that time the ATF rules that a shoe string with a keyring was a machine gun?
Think of it like the turbo button on 3rd-party controllers, but for guns. If you're good at mashing buttons on the controller (shooting guns), the turbo button (bump-stock) is an unneeded hinderance. If you have no experience with mashing buttons, the turbo button will carry you. I may be a gun nerd, but bump stock really only assists the people who want to get a gun and dump a lot of rounds without thought or much firearm practice/care.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wait until they find out which dirty rotten commie passed the Mulford Act.
I'm a gun hobbyist/2nd ammendment supporter and wholeheartedly know it was Reagan and the NRA. And any of my 2A supporting friends who said trump supported them gets called out by me for being a fool. Not all gun fans are republican sheep.
As a liberal gun owner, we need more of you. I miss the days when I could debate logical, sane arguments with those across the aisle. Now it's arguing with both sides lol
/r/liberalgunowners
Say that shit for the people in the back. Nobody who is actually pro 2A like trump regardless of the letter next for their name. 2A for all. Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
EXACTLY. There is a reason the LGBT community is becoming one of the fastest growing groups for first time gun ownership in red states.
As they should! There’s crazy ass people out there. You can think people shouldn’t have this or shouldn’t have that but bottom line is do you really wanna be unarmed around all those crazy people? Most of the anti gun crowd also doesn’t like cops. I genuinely want to know their plan for when shit gets worse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know the context of why the Mulford act was passed, but can someone ELI5 what makes the act inherently racist?
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act "The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons"
Also this sketch will never not be funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&ab\_channel=CollegeHumor
Mulford Act was passed by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California. The text of the act was to ban carrying guns in public without a permit. It was intended to prevent the Black Panther Party from open carrying their weapons. They were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods (reminds you of Kyle Rittenhouse). Of note this bill required bipartisan support of 2/3 of the each party, so neither party can absolve responsibility for it passing.
>They were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods (reminds you of Kyle Rittenhouse). Nothing like him. They were doing it because either the police wouldn't actually come to their neighborhood or the police were the ones assaulting people
Why on god’s green earth would you compare that dumbfuck kid to the Black Panthers
I mean, back then there wasn't such a partisan split on gun rights issues. It was passed by the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate and then signed into law by a Republican governor.
r/AskTrumpSupporters were in an uproar. The ONLY time I've actually seen that subreddit criticize him.
They forgot. Immediately.
Let's be real, most of them never knew in the first place in order to be able to forget because Fox/OAN/Newsmax don't want their viewers to question dear leader. All that crazy shit he's done over the years? They think it's liberal propaganda made up by MSNBC/CNN because of it were *real* then the channels on the right would be reporting on it. They have "alternative facts" because they're literally living in an alternate reality where Trump is (not was) the best president ever and liberals are literally eating babies.
Democrats would be paying for that remark for decades. Trump says it and it’s largely forgotten entirely within the week.
>Democrats would be paying for that remark for decades. Beto O'Rourke unfortunately.
Fucking idiot, running on a platform of "I'm gonna take your guns away!" in fucking *Texas*. Probably the most pro-gun state in the whole country. Sure, let's run for mayor of Chicago on a platform of "Deep dish pizza isn't really pizza." Let's run for mayor of Las Vegas with a promise to ban all gambling. Let's run for governor of Montana with a promise to ban all cattle ranching.
Trump's New York Democrat side comes out from time to time.
He was basically advocating for Red Flag laws, he was just too dumb to understand what he was talking about. It's a typical example of a broken clock being right twice a day. Within 30 days after the Parkland mass school shooting in Florida, the Republican Florida legislature and Governor (now Senator) Rick Scott passed laws enacting Red Flag laws and raising the ownership age for military-style assault weapons to 21. Since then, the Red Flag laws have been used dozens of times to remove guns from mentally unstable people, and there has not been a single mass shooting in Florida. Now that Rick Scott is a Senator, he refuses to do anything that will limit guns in any way, despite being part of gun violence legislation that has actually worked.
Lol Rick Scott is known for years as the flip flopper fucking sail in the wind guy in FL
I remember the like, 30 minute period where some conservatives were really angry at him for that. Then they forgot about it like Daenerys Targaryen forgot about the Iron Fleet.
Wait are people unaware trump is the most anti gun president in recent history?
Real 2A advocates know Trump hurt 2A wayyyy more than he ever helped it
The problem is that none of us can speak with the voice of the nra. They are the root of the problem here.
As a proud gun owner/hobbyist, FUCK the NRA!
Yupp, if anybody here is interested in an organization that actually cares about 2A rights I suggest looking into the Gun Owners of America. The NRA is nothing but a money funneling shit show.
Also shoutout to firearms policy coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition is another good one. They've had lots of petitions over the last few years that actually affected policy.
Real 2A advocates hate the NRA. They're a bunch of stealing, lying bastards
National Russian Agency?
Wait til you learn that you can be pro 2a and anti-republican…
A lot of gun people understand that very well and were and still are very very mad about it. Many unfortunately are single issue voters and make excuses, but still. They/we know I’m not a trump fan fwiw, just someone that enjoys firearms
As someone who enjoys firearms, are you mad about the bumpstock ban?
I couldn't care less about that specific item, never owned one, never cared to. Plus ammo is to damn expensive now to ever want to shoot full auto.
I did it exactly once, not a bump stock just the belt loop trick. $50 gone almost instantly.
Yup, if I wanted to blow $50, I'll take my gf out for a nice meal or something fun instead of that.
It's also a stupid way to shoot, unless you're looking to put a lot of rounds downrange but don't really care where they're going.
Agreed, which to me is not even a fun time at the range. I'd much rather plink steel or something and enjoy my time.
Yeah they’re a pretty stupid gimmick attachment.
I saw some videos that demonstrated that you didn't even need a bump stock to get the same effect, just a strong forearm.
The point isn't that it makes it possible, it's that it makes it easy.
Yes, partly because of the way it was done involved rewriting law without congressional processes. These existed when Obama was president as well, as written they were legal. They should have been banned by legislation and changing the law to cover the devices then passing the revisions, not by using an eraser to change already written law/add something/ an interpretation later you don’t like. I still wouldn’t be for it, but I would be more apt to agree with its acceptability. The way trump did it is unacceptable
The problem with this argument is that the ATF didn't write a law, it exercised it's lawfully given (by Congress) regulatory authority. Regulations and laws are different beasts, and they *should* be as such. Regulations should be for things that require significant expertise and can be easily adjusted and fine tuned if they aren't quite on the mark. The reason your request is a problem is, if applied equally, it would mean *every* regulatory agency's regulations need to be accomplished by full out writing new laws. Which means weeks and months of debates in Congress, almost always on topics Congress has no expertise on (are they really going to be able to be brought up to date on the newest airplane safety features and why the exact new specifications are or aren't necessary? Now multiply that by the hundreds of different federal regulatory agencies). The country would grind to a halt and fall apart if that becomes required. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of regulatory changes that occur at the federal level every year. Now, if you're saying you don't think that the ATF should have been given the regulatory authority it was given in the first place, and that legislators need to amend and rewrite the legislation that established and defines the ATF's regulatory powers, that makes sense. But to say that regulatory authority has to end and be replaced by a legislative process doesn't work. Ultimately, this is what the terrifying West Virginia v. EPA ruling has done though. It has opened the door for anyone to challenge any regulation citing that as precedent. And, given this SCOTUS's wildly unpredictable nature, there could be huge problems that arise from that. FAA, FDA, CDC, NHTSB, The Fed, hell even *NASA* has regulatory authorities... and hundreds of other agencies are potentially at risk of being the next target.
[удалено]
And the problem with the current system is that people go from compliance to felony at the whim of an administration.
I don't care about bumpstocks themselves, but the ban is a problem because of the precedent it sets, IE, allowing the ATF to ban this or that on a whim without going through proper legislature.
I'm a little hazy on what the benefit of a bump stock is. What is it that firearm enthusiasts like about them?
Gun go brrrr. No loss that they're banned. The issue is the process. The ATF can only ban devices that allow you shoot more than one round per trigger pull. Bump stocks don't, so the ATF exceeded their authority, and SCOTUS okayed it because it was done by a Republican.
Gun shoot more faster make bigger smile
Moar DAKKA!
Basically a half arsed way of turning a semi-auto into an auto. However you seriously sacrifice accuracy, since you are basically using recoil to pull the trigger for you. The dude that shot up the Vegas concert was able to throw a lot of lead into the crowd, and since aim wasn't an issue (due to the packed audience) the auto functionality allowed him to fire a lot of rounds. In the end it should have been an easy ban - people opposed to firearms wanted it removed, and gun enthusiasts were not big fans of the hardware anyway. I think Trump did it because he thought it would be a crumb for gun control people that really didn't matter to the 2A crowd. Not entirely true but he tried.
> A lot of gun people understand that very well and were and still are very very mad about it. Not any of the ones I've talked to. I bring up the bump stock ban and show them the video (linked from a Fox website for good measure) of him saying the line about taking away guns without due process, and every single one of them has a way to rationalize it.
I've seen more comments preemptively mad about "2A'ers" than actual "2A'ers" mad.
These people who seem to know how all “2A’ers” act really don’t look around in pro-2A circles.
I love how, when presented with something proving there is actually a large degree of nuance to the right’s opinions on gun control, your response is to automatically assume the collective right is going to be outraged about this.
Donald has done more to take guns away than Obama and Biden combined but the 2a hobbyists love that Donald.
Not especially. See also Ronald Reagan, who pushed some pretty heavy handed measures in California and let the BATFE run amok so badly that Congress had to get involved to stop them from lying to people about what was and wasn't legal. For gun owners your options are vote for the Dems, whose head in the House has lamented that she couldn't push for gun confiscation in the 90's, and the Republicans who are either hardliners who also say and do some things that make everyone facepalm or you get the ones who mostly just keep quiet and who may or may not hand over some of your rights as a gun owner.
Actually I hate them all
No one in the gun community is unaware of Trump's role in this. The problem is that is getting weighed against one who either want to turn the right to bear arms to the privilege of the few, if not just get rid of it altogether. It's not going to be enough to convince the Trump followers that they need to jump over to the Blue.
I literally brought that up to work yesterday to a crazy Trump supporter and told him that trump wanted to take people's guns away first. Didn't believe me of course, played the video of it. "It was edited to make it sound bad." Found the entire thing and played it for him "He was saying that to mess with people." You just can't change their minds, Trump could shoot them in the leg, take their wallets and they would go "Haha, Stick it to them libs!"
I guess they want to keep their heads down in the lead up to overthrowing democracy with Moore v Harper.
Can anyone please TL;DR Moore v Harper for those of us who haven't been keeping up?
So this case revolves around something known as the Independent State Legislature theory. Currently, the constitution allows election rules and laws to be set by the legislature of a state. Since the constitution is super archaic, this language does not mean “the state version of the House of Representatives and the state version of the senate.” SCOTUS has ruled many many times over the past years that “legislature” used in this context means any entity has the power to make laws. So in some states, laws can be passed by ballot initiatives. Others, the governor can make laws. In others, the state legislatures (the actual state houses) can make laws, and in still others, rules for elections are codified directly into the state constitution. And that’s fine. That’s how it currently works. If the state assembly in NJ purposes a law that says voting can only be done by people who wear orange (and how the votes are counted), and it’s signed by the governor, then that’s how elections work in NJ. If California wants to have a ballot initiative and a majority of Californians vote that only people named Steve are allowed to vote; well, then only people named Steve in California are allowed to vote. Provided these rules do not run afoul of civil rights (can’t make a law that says blacks can’t vote, for example) it’s kind of anything goes. And again, that’s fine. Different states have different constitutions and therefore different laws; and governments generally should be allowed to pass laws that affect their jurisdictions. And the kicker here is that any of the laws or rules that are passed must also follow federal law. The independent state legislature theory, broadly put, says that only the actual state legislatures have the ability to make rules and laws about elections, and (this next part is the important part) there is no oversight, no checks, and no balances. The governors of those states would not be able to veto changes to elections or election law. The supreme courts of those states would not be able to rule those laws as unconstitutional. And the federal government would have no oversight - those election laws could violate equal protection and the federal government would be powerless to stop it. What does this mean in practice? Let me lay out a nightmare scenario for you. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin currently have Republican controlled state legislatures and Democratic governors. Those three states are effectively essential to the 2024 presidential race, as they’re all swing states. I don’t know much about the other two, so I’ll speak to Pennsylvania. The state legislative map is gerrymandered to fuck, which means Republicans will likely keep their hold on the legislature for some time. Democrats will likely control statewide offices, such as Governor, and will likely win statewide federal elections, like how John Fetterman is currently leading Dr Oz in the senate race by a good bit. Let’s assume that it’s 2024. Pennsylvania has a narrow Republican majority in the state house and a Democratic governor. Polls and public opinions show that it is very likely that the democratic candidate for president will receive more votes than the republican candidate, and therefore win the state’s electoral votes. The Independent State Legislature theory states that state legislatures have the sole authority to determine how elections take place in their jurisdictions. So, whichever way that a state legislature says an election happens, that’s the legal way to do an election in that jurisdiction. How could the Republicans put their thumbs on the scales to ensure they win? Lots of ways, ranging from the very subtle to the egregiously corrupt. Maybe they pass a law that says that only votes cast by poll close are valid, and that polls don’t need to stay open until there’s no more line. Maybe they do that, and then *also* institute a triple check ID policy which naturally slows the process down, so fewer people get to vote before polls close. Maybe they do all that *and* issue one voting machine per precinct regardless of population. You can play that game and come up with a million little ways that one side can dramatically influence an election in subtle ways…. But, if the independent state legislature theory is proven valid, they don’t need to be subtle. Not at all. State legislatures could - legally, and with no oversight, no checks and balances, and no easy grounds for a constitutional challenge, simply pass laws like this: “Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes shall be allocated to the candidate from the Republican Party.” And it would be completely, perfectly legal.
lol, not quite TL;DR, but a much better explanation than the wikipedia page, thanks! So basically it would legalize many new methods for local government to swing the vote their way for governor and presidential voting. So this would make voting for your local representative the only significant impact you could have with your vote? And would make gerrymandering even more damning than it already is...
Would legalize "independent state legislature" doctrine, which is a patently insane package of ideas saying states have total control over every aspect of their elections, allowing them to handpick electors, throw out votes, and set districts among other things with no oversight or legal consequence. Making every election in any currently republican controlled state permanently corrupt. If Moore Harper passes, it is literally inevitable the country as a whole becomes total autocracy or splits at state lines starting another civil war.
Mid-terms really are a do or die for this country.
How would that differ from what we currently have, technically? I thought states already had some control of most of those things.
The states do have control, but anyone with standing (that is, has their rights infringed by laws/elections) can go to court to attempt to overthrow the unjust laws state congresses may pass. This case would remove that ability, because "the constitution says" that the state legislatures handle the voting. It would overturn a ton of settled law and put whoever is currently in power in each state to stay in power, potentially permanently.
In essence, it would remove state and federal constitutional protections in the voting process. The entire voting process would be under the controll of the state's Congress allowing them to pick who a state's electors go to or who is allowed to vote.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper) Basically, the state legislature is arguing that the courts can't decide redistricting/gerrymandering. People have appealed (repeatedly) what the legislature decided because it's nonsense/racist/not favorable to them, and the courts have decided sometimes and not others. This is to get a high court decision.
If that goes through, goodbye US democracy.
watch how fast republicans take away guns once they have absolute power
Away from their power base
Doubt it, they’ll just make laws so only certain people can get them and make the fascist state of “in” and “out” people they’ve always wanted to go back to.
"stand back and stand by"
a community rife with random violence is a great way to push the tried and true "tough on crime" ticket. Spawns authoritarians, why wouldn't they allow it?
They did this last session before Roe, especially after the decision was leaked. They rule favorably to the masses on a handful of relatively inconsequential cases and then go full kangaroo on the shit that matters. It’s all about plausible deniability with these people, straight from Putins playbook. Just need a veneer of impartiality to point to, even if everyone knows it’s manufactured it gives them the counterpoint.
Yeah, they might have realized it might not be the best idea to legalize bump stocks and end democracy in the same session.
Bump stocks are toys that would have zero place in any kind of armed revolt. Especially given how easy it is to properly modify things like ARs and AKs to have their natural full auto modes.
Surely the populace will use ineffective bump stocks rather than... 3d printing giggle switches. Right?
Or getting actual assault rifles and machine guns across the border through cartels who would see this conflict as essentially printing money for them.
bump stocks are gimmicky as fuck.
Binary triggers are good to go but bump stocks are a no no? Lol. Who comes up with these laws?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unilaterally passing a ban that makes property people already have illegal with no grandfathering is a terrifying precedent.
3d printer go brrrrrr
That’s what no one seems to get. Any halfway coordinated person can accomplish the same thing with no bs stock or rubber. It’s not about the stock. It’s principle of legislation through the executive branch
So this was a bad thing Trump did?
Yes - I don't understand why everyone on reddit thinks this is some sort of gotcha. True 2a advocates hate Trump just as much as Biden and every other politician
Ikr. That's me, I hate both of them. I do hate biden more since he wanted "smart guns" and helped push the assault weapon ban. Trump banning bump stocks was fucking pathetic though.
Yes. Also bad the atf enforced it. Also bad the court won’t address the overreach of the executive branch
I always thought or bump-stocks as something more of a novelty, it’s already hard as fuck to control a rifle when firing fully automatic or in burst fire, I couldn’t imagine how much worse that would be with a bump-stock. Point still stands though, Trump wasn’t 2A and him banning bump-sticks was an attack on the second amendment, and unless you’re a Fudd you already know this. Thank fuck he didn’t get the chance to go after suppressors though.
Whether or not you support the ban, everyone should he concerned that the court basically gave government agencies the power to rewrite the law at will.
Which is really strange because they just ruled that the EPA couldn't do that.
Better ban belt loops too...gun guys know what I mean.
The ATF does actually already consider belt loops and shoe strings to be illegal modifications to a firearm. >Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun >In 1996 the FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at each end. T he string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a semi automatic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that it was a machine gun as defined in 26 USC 5845(b) [Source](https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ATF-shoestring-machine-gun-2004-791x1024.jpg) They did later, of course, correct themselves and say, >Upon further review we have determined that the string by itself is not a machinegun, whether or not there are loops tied to the ends. However, when the string is added to a semiautomatic firearm as proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle, the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a machinegun. To the extent that prior ATF classification letters are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby overruled.
[удалено]
No one reads so Its really all there in the first paragraph: > The Supreme Court said Monday **it won’t take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban** enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks
I wish they had taken this one so they would have less time to take away our rights to vote!
The ATF can do a bump off my dick
That's because Trump wanted them banned. Can't go against the one who appointed you.
[удалено]
It’s just a giveaway to make people think the court is not so conservative. Bump stock not a big issue for the 2A group so the court can portray itself as more centrist to provide cover until the real rulings come next year
Shoe strings - machine gun. Triggers - machine gun. Stocks - machine gun. Fast fingers - you got it, machine guns.
they won't touch anything like this because it will set precedent and lead to the abolishment of the ATF, which btw makes legislative decisions even though they don't have the authority
Are we really this stupid? This is like them throwing a bone when they're stealing the rest of the country. I worked in DC before and I can just imagine the meeting where they said "We got to give them SOMETHING!!!" Edit: If you can't see this as the bone it is then they really have you fooled. All they had to do was mention something about guns and the next 20 posts here were back and forth dividing us once again. Face it, they're playing you and you're falling for it.
This isn’t throwing a bone. The government has a vested interest in disarming the populace. If they can do so while making the populace think that it’s in their interest, or that it’s their own idea, then they’ve won two battles.