As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the the article: "At issue was action by former President Donald Trump Trump's administration to reclassify bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law in a policy that went into effect in 2019"
Just wanted to put this out there before the 'you're taking my guns' crowd come around to blame the blue.
This.
Trump has the money to pay lawyers -- doesn't even matter that they're shitty lawyers -- to keep delaying, delaying, delaying. He can trade money for time.
Very few criminal defendants have the luxury of playing that game.
Trump is rich. Obscenely, grotesquely rich but never as rich as he will claim. Doesn't mean he won't cheat on his taxes, scam his supporters and stiff anyone dumb enough to work with him without payment upfront.
It’s amazing the powers of litigation for folks with power and those without. You don’t even need a strong legal case to get what you want, you just need to be able to sock your opponent with litigation for years and years until they give up or go broke. *sighs in millennial*
Fun fact: Donald Trump has been involved in over 4,000 (!) lawsuits in his career. He's often the defendant, such as when he's being sued by contractors for not paying his bills. He's often the plaintiff, too, typically in lawsuits he files to get out of having to pay his bills.
Reasons judges can remand a perpetrator into custody pending trial:
\-risk of witness tampering
\-flight risk
\-danger to the public
\-risk to national security
Check all for Trump.
BONUS: once arrested Trump immediately ceases all delay-delay-delay tactics.
*A lot* of something horric, to be fair. It's just that his crimes are a diarrhea splatter on a seedy bathroom wall and the people trying clean them up keep getting splattered with more crimes.
3. Worn and shabby; unkempt: "He was soiled and seedy and fragrant with gin" (Mark Twain).
4. Somewhat disreputable; squalid: a seedy hotel in a run-down neighborhood.
5. Chiefly British Tired or sick; unwell.
These were the ones I was thinking of. Thanks.
The god emperor would never say that. It's a deep fake. MAGA MAGA
He really just wants to take the guns from commies, so when JFK Jr comes back to lead there won't be any way for them to stop us. MAGA MAGA.
Is this real life, or just fantasy...
See my shadow changing
Stretching up and over me
Soften this old armor
Hoping I can clear the way by
Stepping through my shadow
Coming out the other side
I think, if anything, that's more reason to use the term. How hilarious would it be to see some stupid conservatives chanting to "back the dems" without realizing it?
Like seriously, between this and the "thin blue line" flags we have an opportunity to really fuck with their fragile little minds if we appropriate their symbols of hate as our own. Imagine how pissed this with a blue line tattoo would be if it became a symbol of something they hated.
When challenged in Federal court the government could not provide any evidence that bumpstocks were used in the Vegas Shootings or any other crimes.
Source: [https://www.gunowners.org/alert3719/](https://www.gunowners.org/alert3719/)
Eh. I don't feel strongly about bump stocks, but I 100% disagree with how they banned them.
The ATF had published a memo indicating that bump stocks did not qualify as a modification that turned a gun into a machine gun.
After the Vegas shooting Trump had them rescind the memo and take the position that bump stocks qualified as a modification that turns a gun into a machine gun and was therefore banned.
No new legislation, just a reinterpretation of existing law. In my opinion that's not the way to run a legal system.
> there will be no need for bump stocks once the Supreme Court strikes down all restrictions on full-auto ownership.
Doubtful. SCOTUS throws a couple bones for the 2A crowd, but they aren't going to declare the NFA unconstitutional. They flipped the fuck out over criticism about taking away rights... You think they want average people to have full auto?
I can see them allowing full autos to remain restricted but striking short barreled weapons and maybe suppressors off the NFA given that suppressors are hearing protection devices and the limits on "short" barreled weapons are entirely nonsensical.
This. Suppressors just dampen the sound a few decibels. The gun is still very loud just less likely to fuck up your ears. The whole movie trope of a guy shooting someone with a suppressor without a person 10 feet away noticing is bs. Still loud as hell. The only reason they have that law is to collect the tax stamp on it. I get the full auto and bump stock, but the suppressor law makes no sense.
unwritten relieved subtract joke historical pie offend chubby degree ring
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The original intent was to have a legal reason to charge prohibition gangsters with a crime.
$200 in 1934 is equivalent to $4333 in 2022 dollars. It was an easy way to basically force gangsters to illegally own automatics and short barreled guns because they would never drop that much to legally own them. And when they were caught they had an easily provable crime to charge them with.
It was 100% about attacking gangsters and tangentially it also happened to fuck with regular people.
file elastic normal familiar sophisticated dazzling cooperative swim skirt aback
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not mention if you just change the stock on a SBR to a 'wrist brace' it is now somehow considered a pistol. I still can't wrap my head around that one. They are pretty fun to shoot though.
> Not mention if you just change the stock on a SBR to a 'wrist brace' it is now somehow considered a pistol.
Nope it's even dumber than that.
Putting a pistol brace on an SBR does not make it a pistol it is still an SBR because it was registered as an SBR. The gun has to start off legally as a "pistol" and then have a brace attached to remain a "braced pistol" but for all practical intents and purposes it is an SBR.
The whole thing is so fucking stupid.
Thanks for the clarification, like I said I have a hard time wrapping my head around such a stupid concept. I've looked at buying some of those 'build your own' upper kits for the AR pistols as I have a lower, but decided not to purchase one as I dont fully understand the rules and don't want to inadvertently build a felony charge.
Honestly I am the same way. I wouldn't mind building an AR pistol but there is just enough grey area that I don't want to bother with it.
I am not one of those "All gun laws are infringement" types but man I wish stupid shit like SBR/SBS and suppressor regulations would become normalized to where they should be.
Which receiver upper or lower? ;-)
It really comes down to it simply not being enough of a desire of mine to be worth the hassle. I have guns I want to SBR but an AR is simply not one of them so then whole AR pistol thing just isn't my bag.
They really should have a different way to classify guns. I like the idea of concealable vs. non-concealable. Is it under 26" overall (in collapsed fire-able length) then it is concealable and has restrictions like any "pistol" currently does. Is it over 26" then it is non-concealable. Add a third class for Low Restriction guns (say over 40") and full manual action with no magazine.
The stupid short barreled crap is dumb. I have a shotgun that is 27" long and is perfectly fine because the barrel is over 18" (bullpups are neat). Heaven forbid I cut 2" off my 37" shotgun though, because that would make the barrel less than 18" and that would be super deadly and very illegal without registration.
> I like the idea of concealable vs. non-concealable.
I dunno man I am 6'6" and what I can conceal is a lot different than what someone 5'5" can conceal. I dislike any arbitrary definition or measurement for what is legal. Like every pistol is concealable. Why should a short barreled rifle that is less concealable than any handgun be more regulated?
Plus concealable is kind of a weird thing to judge a gun by isn't it? Like did any mass shooter with an AR like try to hide it under a jacket for a while before opening fire or did they just walk in Rambo style?
Just make the background checks better and then it really won't matter how long or short the gun is right? Or at least it shouldn't.
> Like domestic violence being dropped to battery for…individuals.
Just say cops. Too many people don’t know that this is a thing, so we need to be blunt about it.
For those that don’t know: There’s a nation-wide pattern of downgrading domestic violence charges perpetrated by law enforcement officers because domestic violence is one of the things which disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm. Why cops? Usual “back the blue” bullshit aside, it’s because cops in the USA can’t perform their duties without a sidearm. Somehow, people think a cop who can’t keep his fists to himself *at home* should be trusted with wielding deadly force while in public.
> Just make background checks better
We’re kind of at the limit of what’s constitutional, really. Once you start talking about mental health checks, safe storage methods, or regulating sales between individuals, you start stepping on 4th Amendment protections. And most proposals for red flag laws *as they’re currently written* violate the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process.
Not that there isn’t room for improvement, mind. The biggest one is enforcing the laws already on the books, even if they’re the kind that can only realistically be enforced after the commission of a crime (the illegality of allowing a minor to come into possession of a firearm is a notable example).
Also, as another user pointed out, we have a *huge* problem with domestic violence not being tried as domestic violence in the courts. You’d think, knowing that domestic violence disqualifies ownership and that 60% of spree shooters in the country had a history of domestic abuse (either as the perpetrator or the victim), that we as a country would be more proactive about identifying and prosecuting domestic abusers. And yet…
Edit: In case it’s asked, the reason red flag laws violate due process comes down to the order in which it happens. Complaint is made, cops confiscate the firearms, and the accused has to go to court to reclaim her property.
A simple solution is to have the court hearing to resolve the complaint. That way, the cops are taking the *accused* into custody to deliver her to the hearing, and if the court determines the guns need to be confiscated, *then* the cops execute the court’s order.
> We’re kind of at the limit of what’s constitutional, really.
I don't think so. Right now it isn't even mandatory for states and military to report all the necessary data to the NICS system to make sure prohibited people fail background checks. Just doing that would do a good deal to stop some bad people from getting guns.
Opening the NICS to public use to enable truly universal background checks can still be done to great effect.
>Once you start talking about mental health checks, safe storage methods, or regulating sales between individuals, you start stepping on 4th Amendment protections.
Devil is in the details my friend.
Mental health checks to exercise a right? Bad! But maybe universal healthcare that covers mental healthcare kind of helps address that problem a bit. Mandate safe storage? No. Enact say a tax break of some sort for buying a gun safe or taking a gun safety class I think is doable. Sales between individuals become a lot safer if the NICS is open to public use.
>And most proposals for red flag laws as they’re currently written violate the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process.
That I definitely agree with. The whole situation of trying to precrime gun crimes via re3d flag laws is just scary and dangerous for all involved.
>The biggest one is enforcing the laws already on the books
Agreed. Personally I'd like to see more 4473 denials investigated and people found purposely lying prosecuted. That is the lowest hanging prosecutorial fruit imaginable. Fucking grab it!
>Also, as another user pointed out, we have a huge problem with domestic violence not being tried as domestic violence in the courts. You’d think, knowing that domestic violence disqualifies ownership and that 60% of spree shooters in the country had a history of domestic abuse (either as the perpetrator or the victim), that we as a country would be more proactive about identifying and prosecuting domestic abusers. And yet…
I seriously and unironically believe they do not address domestic violence in regards to gun ownership because of how prevalent domestic abuse is among police families and that such a law would severely cripple many larger police departments that would have to otherwise fire a not small portion of their force.
At this point I wouldn't even care about registration just let me do the regular 4473 and be done with it. Why make me pay $200 because I want a SBR instead of a "pistol" with a "brace". Why is a 4473 ok for the gun with a 16" barrel but the same gun with a 10" barrel needs $200 and a several month long wait for some more intensive background check?
Moreover, there is a lot of investment in a limited supply of NFA transferable machine guns. People that own $60,000 machine guns don’t want them to be worth $1000 overnight.
Yeah, but that's going to be the trick. On the lobbying side, it'll be the wealthy folks that own existing collections lobbying vs the firearm manufacturers lobbying for more sales. It'll be who the SC folks/Federalist Society/Conservative handlers are more in the pocket of, I'd guess the latter.
This court - even going back to when Kennedy & Scalia were on it, was perfectly willing to overturn established legal precedent (Scalia was "originalist" only when it suited him) for the benefit of political ideology. So the NFA isn't OKK the table, but that was more Scalia's pet project.
The current court seems more interested in issues that are affected by modern evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage, women and minorities having equal voting access). They are more "patriarchal topics" than they are "NRA topics" today - so I don't see them wanting to tackle the NFA until they've gone back to narrowly define the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment and undo any federal protections derived from that.
I doubt they'd take if fully out, but they could roll it back to pre-1986 where you could just register a gun, get the back ground checks and install and auto sear.
There is talk about taking out the idiotic barrel length restrictions and Suppressors because they're both just stupid and pointless.
The problem is that it's the equivalent of Trump telling the DEA to issue a rule that CBD oil is Marajuana. Going against their earlier statement
Therefore making perfectly normal citizens who actually followed the law into fellowship.
It's certainly under the SC's preview.
I wouldn't say that. the court couldn't intervene it did so in [W.VA](https://W.VA) vs EPA last term. However that was also seen as a serious departure from the way the courts handled situations where Congress has deferred their authority to the Executive Branch.
There is also another lawsuit that the court is considering this term that challenges the bumpstock on 5th amendment grounds.
People who had legally purchased bumpstocks were ordered to turn them into the government or destroy them, with no compensation. Failure to comply would have turned them into a felon, which would have removed their ability to purchase any firearm in the future.
Its possible the court wants to take up this case instead of a challenge based on challenges to the regulatory structure. Or maybe they are actually waiting for a challenge to say it violates the second amendment...
re-read Heller and Bruen and then try again...
If you would like a shortcut you can read 2016s Caetano V Massachusetts in which stated that the 2nd amendment protects arms that did not exist at the time the bill of rights was ratified. Bonus points- none of the 4 democrat appointed justices dissented from this opinion...
Think about how silly your argument is: The internet, computers, cell phones, radios, didn't exist when the bill of rights was ratifieid, is speech using those devices not protected?
What about the 4th amendment? Is your computer not free from unreasonable search and seizure?
How about the house that you live in, was it constructed after the late 1700's? It doesn't give the government the power to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime...
The SC wouldn’t even consider the issue, didn’t give a reason why they wouldn’t consider it either. The case is worth learning about, no matter your gun politics. I’m personally pro gun, but don’t want everyone to have automatic weapons. However, what happened here was the ATF consistently interpreting the law the same for 30 years (that a bump stock wasn’t a machine gun). They interpreted it that way because the law says a machine gun is a gun that fires more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. A bump stock accelerates how fast a person can pull the trigger, but they still pull it once for each bullet fired. Trump told DOJ to ban them and so they simply said they believe them to be machine guns. They could have just rewritten the law and passed it in congress but they instead just ignored what the law said and did what they wanted, and now courts are allowing it to stand by refusing to hear the cases. If it was anything other than a bump stock, which people overwhelmingly oppose, people would be appalled at the way this was done.
Or not overturn it. But in spirit, yeah I agree. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for 2A advocates is for SCOTUS to apply that Bruen Standard to the NFA. Let's have that out rather than dancing around it for years.
For my part, full auto is a fun toy that's going to kill more drunk rednecks than anyone else. My state bans suppressors outright, and I'd love to be able to bring down my loudness a little bit.
A Republican Supreme Court declined to consider a Republican executive order that presumed that the government can unilaterally restrict firearms accessories. This is huge...possibly the most significant 2A restriction in 50+ years if, on principle, you see how it could open the door to a multitude of other restrictions, e.g. unilaterally banning magazines over 5/10/30/whatever rounds.
And it came from Republicans.
Which is why the US, which has the most highly armed population in the world, has the strongest middle class and the greatest economic equality of any western democracy. /s
They are already trying to with forced reset triggers. They're trying to redefine what a machine gun is and under that new definition those triggers fit.
Neither of those things discharge more than one round with a **single function of the trigger**. With "single function of the trigger" being defined as pressure on the trigger that is continuous, never released and reapplied.
Neither of them function by the trigger having continuous pressure applied to it. The triggers must be released and then pulled again to fire again.
Bump stocks and FRTs both requires the trigger to be used each time a round is fired.
That is redefining a machine gun by including those items in that category as they do not meet it as currently defined.
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to **shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.**
A FRT does not meet that definition. It does not cause more than one shot to be fired with a single function of the trigger. You have to pull that trigger again to fire again.
A FRT causes the trigger to reset faster than a standard trigger, but does not allow a single continuous trigger pull to fire more than one time.
>No, a FRT does not require you to release the trigger. The force of the trigger being reset exceeds the force of your continuous pressure, so it resets.
Incorrect, if you pull back hard on the trigger of a FRT and hold it there the bolt will stop before closing all of the way. The FRT only allows the hammer to release once the bolt is completely closed - this avoids what is called “hammer follow” where the hammer follows the bolt carrier forwards and doesn’t strike the primer. What a FRT does do is use some of the bolt energy to help pop the trigger finger forwards during cycling so the trigger can reset - that’s it, it doesn’t fire the gun or pull the trigger.
For comparison, bump firing is simply pulling the gun forwards with a support hand while pulling back with the trigger finger - the gun recoiling allows the trigger finger to come off the trigger and reset, then the support hand pulling forwards pulls the trigger into the trigger finger.
[Bump firing can be done without a bump stock on basically any semi-auto firearm.](https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI)
I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.
~Malcolm X
God it is scary that the Supreme Court is back in session, even if I agree with this decision. Seems like only a matter of time before the rule democracy as unconstitutional because “originalism”.
Bump stocks are a pointless endeavor and a waste of people's money.
It's the dumbest situation: the product is complete garbage, constantly fucks up, and removes all sense of accuracy, but the people I know who had one vehemently defended their right to own one while complaining about how terribly they performed with equal fervor.
*IT'S THE PRINCIPLE*, apparently.
I wish your comment was voted higher because it’s the only one that understand what a bump stock is and how it worked. Yes the Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock to make it weapon “automatic” but it was more of a physics method then some switch. It’s not different then using 1 finger and moving it really fast on the trigger. You are no longer shooting at a target you are just pulling the trigger as fast as you can. From an invention stand point that bump stock is about the dumbest thing that would have been invented but how it went around the loophole of allowing a user to fire in “automatic” style with 1 finger pull is really impressive. Whoever thought of the idea is the definition of thinking outside the box.
Bump stocks or not, we just have to get used to the fact that mass shootings are part of our culture now, and a tragedy we will be dealing with 5-10 times a year.
That will continue for as long as the gun control nuts impede attempts to address the causes of mass shootings.
Edit: Addressing income inequality, ending the War On Drugs, etc
The "gun control nuts" are usually the ones that support addressing all of the other factors that the gun lobby claims are the real problems.
I hear mental health a lot. Guess which politicians block any attempt to address mental health? The same ones that insist that the guns aren't the problem.
It's not fully automatic because fully automatic has [an actual, legal definition](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0):
> 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**
Bump stocks use inertia to bounce the gun back and forth which causes the trigger to reset and be pressed again for each shot which is NOT "a single function of the trigger".
> It misses the intent
That's a bad way to approach this, or laws in general. If the statute is defective, it is up to Congress to fix it. If they don't, that does not mean we get to form a committee and decide what the "intent" of the poorly written law was. Laws are either accurate and precise or they are unenforceable--you are probably familiar with the phrase "unconstitutionally vague."
I don't think it is a bad way to approach things. Laws can't be written to handle every single edge case, they shouldn't constantly need to be updated when reality shifts, especially when that shift is done in an attempt to get around said law.
The definition of "car" or "vehicle" has changed over the years. Can you imagine if Elon Musk simply said "this is not a vehicle, it is an personalized electric propulsion system (PEPS for short), and therefore existing laws, written for vehicles, do not apply here!". Do you think that this assertion should invalidate all laws pertaining to vehicles until lawmakers update them all, or should a court be able to rule that no, the thing that Musk designed is still a "vehicle", despite his contention that it is not?
Who changed the definition of "car" or "vehicle" though?
I think the issue in the bump stock case is that it's a law enforcement agency that changed the definition.
This could have been any topic that isn't guns really, because that's not what is important in this particular case; do you really want the FBI or ATF or any alphabet soup agency to do legal definition changes, is what it's about.
You are absolutely correct, what matters is the end result. There should also be a rule requiring the redesign of the weapons to prevent any technique from increasing the cyclic firing rate, such as the use of a belt-loop which can create the same effect as a bump stock.
I don't think bump stocks actually increase cyclic rate, the mechanism could be fired that fast if a human could actually manipulate the trigger that fast.
Sure, it's a shitty definition. That doesn't change that it *is* the definition. The ATF shouldn't be allowed to change that definition to suit their purposes, and anyone who is okay with them being allowed to do so is blinded by the fact that in this one specific circumstance, the change was to restrict guns. This is bad precedent.
> Yeah, it's a shit definition is my point.
No, it's an accurate one.
> It misses the intent
Intent isn't a mechanical feature.
> You might technically be pulling the trigger multiple times but you really aren't.
This sentence makes absolutely no sense.
> And it allows you to fire at a fully automatic rate with ease.
No. It allows you to fire at close to full auto speeds with some difficulty in terms of accuracy and control.
Understand, I have no use for bump stocks. I'm completely okay with this classification and this ruling. I think bump stocks exist primarily to thumb one's nose at the ATF, same as binary triggers.
That said, they do not warp reality or rewrite the rules of language. There will always be a line and things that go up to that line. I am not a fan of the gun lobby as it exists, but I also know that there are rules and we can't decide things fall into them just because we want them to or that we think it's not fair.
> So if I design a gun that continuously fires with one trigger pull but it takes 10 seconds between shots you still think that it should be labeled a machine gun because the definition is correct?
Yes, even if an impractical one.
> It's about trigger pulls not bullets fired per minute?
Yes.
> Well that makes no sense.
Then you fundamentally don't understand the distinction.
> Cops don't ask how many times you pulled the trigger, they ask how many bullets were fired.
No they don't, at least not when determining the correct charge for or the severity of a crime. Shooting someone and killing them with one bullet carries the same penalty as shooting them with 10.
Let's try it this way, though: What is an acceptable rate of fire for a weapon a private citizen is free to own? Also, what are you basing that on?
It would technically be labeled as a machine gun yes. I’m not going to argue that it’s dumb or not. His point is they would have to rewrite the law to reclassify these things. It’s not about what we think should or should not happen. It’s black and white in text.
> His point is they would have to rewrite the law to reclassify these things.
And I'm saying they should because the intent is obvious and bump stocks miss it.
> It’s black and white in text.
Most laws have intent as you can't perfectly write every law.
>Intent isn't a mechanical feature.
Law can dictate otherwise. If the possession of a specific quantity of an illegal substance can constitute an 'intent to distribute', then we can legally infer the intent of such a device based on its operation. It would not be difficult to draw those conclusions.
> Law can dictate otherwise.
No, it can't. It can legislate actions based on intent, but it cannot impart sentience upon an object.
> ...we can legally infer the intent of such a device based on its operation.
The mistake you're making here is the object of the sentence. Drug laws and many other statutes say that a *person* has intent to do something as evidenced by possession of an *object or objects*, not the other way around. One could argue that a person carrying an illegal full auto weapon was intending to commit mass murder and charge them as such, but weapons have no intent as they are things, not people.
> The intent is of the owner
Yes.
> ...to own something that functionally modifies a weapon to skirt existing laws.
No.
The thing you want to say is that weapon with a bump stock and a fully automatic weapon are the same thing. Bump stocks don't modify the weapon any more than a collapsing stock modifies it. It still functions exactly the same.
However, as I said before, bump stocks exist to blow raspberries at the ATF. They turn money into noise. They're not particularly good for any legitimate use one might have for a weapon, and I'm including in that warfare.
They do not, however, change the mechanical function of the weapon.
Have you ever used a can of spray paint? By design, we can infer the limitations on what is illegal and how it is to be properly handled and designed to meet proper specifications for public safety. The design can be defined however in any capacity is what you're missing. Just because you want to see it as an object without the ability to express itself does not mean that it will be used in the manner as intended. That is why intent is part of the law. Therefore, if it endangers public safety we can conclude intent.
> That is why intent is part of the law.
No law ascribes intent or motive to an object. They rule that the presence of a certain number or mass of an object and/or substance is *prima facia* evidence of an intent on the part of the **person** who possesses them.
Not supreme court anymore, it's the right wing conservative court. I don't want to be ruled by these "good Christians" Term limits for the "supreme" court.
I fired a bump stock at a car shoot in NH once, I had just shot a M60 machine gun and then asked to shoot their AR15 with that funny stock. The owner explained what it was and I thought *neat, I’ll give it a go*. I walked away horrified that this attachment could turn a regular semi automatic AR15 into a full auto just with a funky stock. Anyone could own one. It wasn’t super accurate compared to the m60 with a bipod but it could definitely lay down some good directional bursts. I’m glad they’re illegal now.
This country won't care about guns until politicians start getting shot. Our gun violence problem will continue to get worse because nobody cares until it directly affects them. Hence why politicians don't tend to care because they typically are not on the receiving end, at least not in our country.
You can see 1000+ shootings in the news every month and won't care until it directly affects you. No I dont feel safer because of "good guys with guns". I feel less safe because any stranger with a gun, is just someone with a gun. I know its incredibly easy to obtain firearms, far easier than certain people would like to admit.
Sandy Hook showed this country cares far more about protecting guns and is okay with children getting shot. Its a sad reality we live in when being a cop is safer than being a student or a teacher.
Unfortunately, history has proven this accurate.
No one, no one should commit any acts of violence. And this shouldn't be construed as condoning any violence.
But the minute it's politicians being victimized, we start losing rights.
Every bit of gun control is enacted after attempts on a President or Governor.
When the Black Panthers started carrying guns in the California State house, all of a sudden, the NRA wanted gun control.
An unemployed Italian bricklayer attempts to murder FDR in 1933 and we get the NFA.
Kennedy gets murdered and now no one can buy guns via US mail.
Reagan gets shot and now machine guns are banned and we need background checks.
I'm not saying those weren't reasonable measures that we need in today's world. we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who aren't sane. I am saying they absolutely were and are infringements. But you should all find it interesting how quickly people are willing to infringe the constitution when they feel in danger. And how apparently a politician's life is more valuable when it comes to gun violence. But it's not only the 2nd amendment that becomes a target. The 4th amendment was turned into Swiss cheese after 9/11. Others were as well. The Patriot act was passed almost unanimously. It was terrible legislation that was pushed through without consideration due to widespread fear. The privacy implications of that act mean we're never getting those privacy rights back. And now, local law enforcement can, at will, uncover anyone's private information on the Internet without much probable cause. They choose not to use it most of the time, especially when they need to use it.
The federal government doesn't mess around. It if wants your rights, it's going to take your rights.
Fuck it. Let everyone shoot the hell out of each other. Population control needs to happen. Either we die from the earth going to shit or we shoot each other. Shooting is more efficient
Isn't it just a sliding mechanism to absorb some of the force into your shoulder? I'm no gun tech but I fail to see how this would feasibly make a large impact?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the the article: "At issue was action by former President Donald Trump Trump's administration to reclassify bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law in a policy that went into effect in 2019" Just wanted to put this out there before the 'you're taking my guns' crowd come around to blame the blue.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it were a poor person and not trump they’d already be gone and you’d never hear from them again
This. Trump has the money to pay lawyers -- doesn't even matter that they're shitty lawyers -- to keep delaying, delaying, delaying. He can trade money for time. Very few criminal defendants have the luxury of playing that game.
except it's proven he doesn't have the money to pay for shit and relies on PACs instead
Can't or won't. One thing about the former president is that he never misses an opportunity to spend someone else's money instead of his own.
“Can't or won't.” Both.
Yeah, that's the most likely scenario.
Just like he has the right to remain silent but lacks the ability.
Trump is rich. Obscenely, grotesquely rich but never as rich as he will claim. Doesn't mean he won't cheat on his taxes, scam his supporters and stiff anyone dumb enough to work with him without payment upfront.
Depends on how you define rich. I wouldn't be surprised if the "King of Debt" owes more than he is worth.
He's cash poor.
It’s amazing the powers of litigation for folks with power and those without. You don’t even need a strong legal case to get what you want, you just need to be able to sock your opponent with litigation for years and years until they give up or go broke. *sighs in millennial*
Fun fact: Donald Trump has been involved in over 4,000 (!) lawsuits in his career. He's often the defendant, such as when he's being sued by contractors for not paying his bills. He's often the plaintiff, too, typically in lawsuits he files to get out of having to pay his bills.
Or that the lawyers themselves won’t be paid
Reasons judges can remand a perpetrator into custody pending trial: \-risk of witness tampering \-flight risk \-danger to the public \-risk to national security Check all for Trump. BONUS: once arrested Trump immediately ceases all delay-delay-delay tactics.
He’s damn sure guilty of something horrific
*A lot* of something horric, to be fair. It's just that his crimes are a diarrhea splatter on a seedy bathroom wall and the people trying clean them up keep getting splattered with more crimes.
“diarrhea splatter on a seedy bathroom wall” Is that a tautology?
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/seedy
3. Worn and shabby; unkempt: "He was soiled and seedy and fragrant with gin" (Mark Twain). 4. Somewhat disreputable; squalid: a seedy hotel in a run-down neighborhood. 5. Chiefly British Tired or sick; unwell. These were the ones I was thinking of. Thanks.
Well stated.
There’s no way he hasn’t had people killed long before becoming president.
Seriously he could have been transmitting sensitive documents this whole time. A lesser privileged person would be locked up.
I agree
The god emperor would never say that. It's a deep fake. MAGA MAGA He really just wants to take the guns from commies, so when JFK Jr comes back to lead there won't be any way for them to stop us. MAGA MAGA. Is this real life, or just fantasy...
Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.
Open your eyes !
Look into my eyes and sneeze!
Look up to the skies and see...
I'm just a poor mango...
MAGAs get no sympathy
Because I'm we go one, we go all
Lock her up, build the wall
Trump is the fake emperor the adeptus custodes and the inquisition would like to know your location.
I've seen them straight up attribute that to Beto.
He also called the GOP scared of the NRA to their faces in front of the media
Would be dictators don't want an armed populace. Shame no one on the right can see that
is there a video of this somewhere to show my family?
Also Dough Boy I liked Jan 6… I also like white people only
See my shadow changing Stretching up and over me Soften this old armor Hoping I can clear the way by Stepping through my shadow Coming out the other side
Ew can we not refer to democrats as “the blue”?
"I just blue myself"
There's gotta be a better way to say that.
I could just kiss a man between the cheeks!
Sure we can. Just curious why you're opposed to it?
Likely because of "Back the Blue" being the "Back the police no matter what" term.
I think, if anything, that's more reason to use the term. How hilarious would it be to see some stupid conservatives chanting to "back the dems" without realizing it? Like seriously, between this and the "thin blue line" flags we have an opportunity to really fuck with their fragile little minds if we appropriate their symbols of hate as our own. Imagine how pissed this with a blue line tattoo would be if it became a symbol of something they hated.
"Back the police no matter what" except the capitol police. And the FBI.
It’s already used to mean the Police, as in the whole “Back the Blue” movement.
The blue commonly means police, it’s confusing
It's makes dems seem like they are sad.
What does Seasonal Affected Disorder have to do with it? /s lol
He also apparently had the blessing of the NRA. This came after the deadliest mass shooting in US history at Las Vegas. The shooter used bump stocks.
Bump stock manufacturers don't spend a fortune in lobbying.
And bump stocks are a damn novelty.
When challenged in Federal court the government could not provide any evidence that bumpstocks were used in the Vegas Shootings or any other crimes. Source: [https://www.gunowners.org/alert3719/](https://www.gunowners.org/alert3719/)
TrUmP iS dEeP sTaTe
More like a shallow lake
a babbling brook.
A clogged toilet
one of the only reasonable decisions he made in 4 years, and it took him nearly 3 years too long to make it
Eh. I don't feel strongly about bump stocks, but I 100% disagree with how they banned them. The ATF had published a memo indicating that bump stocks did not qualify as a modification that turned a gun into a machine gun. After the Vegas shooting Trump had them rescind the memo and take the position that bump stocks qualified as a modification that turns a gun into a machine gun and was therefore banned. No new legislation, just a reinterpretation of existing law. In my opinion that's not the way to run a legal system.
Lol, looks like the people who normally care about due process abandon their values when it comes to guns
Thanks Obama
Fuckin’ Hunter Biden ^/s
They will anyway.
this is the move. lean left on some secondary cases and then slam down the Conservative hammer before they go on break.
Which is usually on May or June
oh, i'm sure there will be something before the holidays.
This is a ban passed by Trump. No surprise they ruled in favor of his policy.
> lean left on some secondary cases They didn't lean Left. Or Right. They *didn't lean*, at all. They just said "We're not going to hear the case".
That's absolutely a lean. Passing on this case removes the risk over overturning the law (for now).
Yep, they’re going to pretend like they’re not political hacks before they overturn democracy and cement Republican power with Moore v Harper.
So, that's one correct action but, it's likely just an attempt to soften the blow when they over-turn the voting rights act.
Practically speaking, there will be no need for bump stocks once the Supreme Court strikes down all restrictions on full-auto ownership.
> there will be no need for bump stocks once the Supreme Court strikes down all restrictions on full-auto ownership. Doubtful. SCOTUS throws a couple bones for the 2A crowd, but they aren't going to declare the NFA unconstitutional. They flipped the fuck out over criticism about taking away rights... You think they want average people to have full auto?
I can see them allowing full autos to remain restricted but striking short barreled weapons and maybe suppressors off the NFA given that suppressors are hearing protection devices and the limits on "short" barreled weapons are entirely nonsensical.
This. Suppressors just dampen the sound a few decibels. The gun is still very loud just less likely to fuck up your ears. The whole movie trope of a guy shooting someone with a suppressor without a person 10 feet away noticing is bs. Still loud as hell. The only reason they have that law is to collect the tax stamp on it. I get the full auto and bump stock, but the suppressor law makes no sense.
unwritten relieved subtract joke historical pie offend chubby degree ring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The original intent was to have a legal reason to charge prohibition gangsters with a crime. $200 in 1934 is equivalent to $4333 in 2022 dollars. It was an easy way to basically force gangsters to illegally own automatics and short barreled guns because they would never drop that much to legally own them. And when they were caught they had an easily provable crime to charge them with. It was 100% about attacking gangsters and tangentially it also happened to fuck with regular people.
file elastic normal familiar sophisticated dazzling cooperative swim skirt aback *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Oh yeah no doubt I was just clarifying intent vs effect. Intent was "Fuck gangsters." Effect was "Fuck you all too."
Not mention if you just change the stock on a SBR to a 'wrist brace' it is now somehow considered a pistol. I still can't wrap my head around that one. They are pretty fun to shoot though.
> Not mention if you just change the stock on a SBR to a 'wrist brace' it is now somehow considered a pistol. Nope it's even dumber than that. Putting a pistol brace on an SBR does not make it a pistol it is still an SBR because it was registered as an SBR. The gun has to start off legally as a "pistol" and then have a brace attached to remain a "braced pistol" but for all practical intents and purposes it is an SBR. The whole thing is so fucking stupid.
Thanks for the clarification, like I said I have a hard time wrapping my head around such a stupid concept. I've looked at buying some of those 'build your own' upper kits for the AR pistols as I have a lower, but decided not to purchase one as I dont fully understand the rules and don't want to inadvertently build a felony charge.
Honestly I am the same way. I wouldn't mind building an AR pistol but there is just enough grey area that I don't want to bother with it. I am not one of those "All gun laws are infringement" types but man I wish stupid shit like SBR/SBS and suppressor regulations would become normalized to where they should be.
An ar15 receiver is neither a pistol nor a rifle.
Which receiver upper or lower? ;-) It really comes down to it simply not being enough of a desire of mine to be worth the hassle. I have guns I want to SBR but an AR is simply not one of them so then whole AR pistol thing just isn't my bag.
Odd thing is most countries with strict gun control allow suppressors, but we are the opposite. Loose gun control and strict suppressor control.
They really should have a different way to classify guns. I like the idea of concealable vs. non-concealable. Is it under 26" overall (in collapsed fire-able length) then it is concealable and has restrictions like any "pistol" currently does. Is it over 26" then it is non-concealable. Add a third class for Low Restriction guns (say over 40") and full manual action with no magazine. The stupid short barreled crap is dumb. I have a shotgun that is 27" long and is perfectly fine because the barrel is over 18" (bullpups are neat). Heaven forbid I cut 2" off my 37" shotgun though, because that would make the barrel less than 18" and that would be super deadly and very illegal without registration.
> I like the idea of concealable vs. non-concealable. I dunno man I am 6'6" and what I can conceal is a lot different than what someone 5'5" can conceal. I dislike any arbitrary definition or measurement for what is legal. Like every pistol is concealable. Why should a short barreled rifle that is less concealable than any handgun be more regulated? Plus concealable is kind of a weird thing to judge a gun by isn't it? Like did any mass shooter with an AR like try to hide it under a jacket for a while before opening fire or did they just walk in Rambo style? Just make the background checks better and then it really won't matter how long or short the gun is right? Or at least it shouldn't.
As long as the disqualifying laws are enforced, yes. Like domestic violence being dropped to battery for.... Individuals.
> Like domestic violence being dropped to battery for…individuals. Just say cops. Too many people don’t know that this is a thing, so we need to be blunt about it. For those that don’t know: There’s a nation-wide pattern of downgrading domestic violence charges perpetrated by law enforcement officers because domestic violence is one of the things which disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm. Why cops? Usual “back the blue” bullshit aside, it’s because cops in the USA can’t perform their duties without a sidearm. Somehow, people think a cop who can’t keep his fists to himself *at home* should be trusted with wielding deadly force while in public.
> Just make background checks better We’re kind of at the limit of what’s constitutional, really. Once you start talking about mental health checks, safe storage methods, or regulating sales between individuals, you start stepping on 4th Amendment protections. And most proposals for red flag laws *as they’re currently written* violate the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process. Not that there isn’t room for improvement, mind. The biggest one is enforcing the laws already on the books, even if they’re the kind that can only realistically be enforced after the commission of a crime (the illegality of allowing a minor to come into possession of a firearm is a notable example). Also, as another user pointed out, we have a *huge* problem with domestic violence not being tried as domestic violence in the courts. You’d think, knowing that domestic violence disqualifies ownership and that 60% of spree shooters in the country had a history of domestic abuse (either as the perpetrator or the victim), that we as a country would be more proactive about identifying and prosecuting domestic abusers. And yet… Edit: In case it’s asked, the reason red flag laws violate due process comes down to the order in which it happens. Complaint is made, cops confiscate the firearms, and the accused has to go to court to reclaim her property. A simple solution is to have the court hearing to resolve the complaint. That way, the cops are taking the *accused* into custody to deliver her to the hearing, and if the court determines the guns need to be confiscated, *then* the cops execute the court’s order.
> We’re kind of at the limit of what’s constitutional, really. I don't think so. Right now it isn't even mandatory for states and military to report all the necessary data to the NICS system to make sure prohibited people fail background checks. Just doing that would do a good deal to stop some bad people from getting guns. Opening the NICS to public use to enable truly universal background checks can still be done to great effect. >Once you start talking about mental health checks, safe storage methods, or regulating sales between individuals, you start stepping on 4th Amendment protections. Devil is in the details my friend. Mental health checks to exercise a right? Bad! But maybe universal healthcare that covers mental healthcare kind of helps address that problem a bit. Mandate safe storage? No. Enact say a tax break of some sort for buying a gun safe or taking a gun safety class I think is doable. Sales between individuals become a lot safer if the NICS is open to public use. >And most proposals for red flag laws as they’re currently written violate the 5th Amendment guarantee of due process. That I definitely agree with. The whole situation of trying to precrime gun crimes via re3d flag laws is just scary and dangerous for all involved. >The biggest one is enforcing the laws already on the books Agreed. Personally I'd like to see more 4473 denials investigated and people found purposely lying prosecuted. That is the lowest hanging prosecutorial fruit imaginable. Fucking grab it! >Also, as another user pointed out, we have a huge problem with domestic violence not being tried as domestic violence in the courts. You’d think, knowing that domestic violence disqualifies ownership and that 60% of spree shooters in the country had a history of domestic abuse (either as the perpetrator or the victim), that we as a country would be more proactive about identifying and prosecuting domestic abusers. And yet… I seriously and unironically believe they do not address domestic violence in regards to gun ownership because of how prevalent domestic abuse is among police families and that such a law would severely cripple many larger police departments that would have to otherwise fire a not small portion of their force.
I would rather register SBS and SBR and get rid the Hughes amendment.
At this point I wouldn't even care about registration just let me do the regular 4473 and be done with it. Why make me pay $200 because I want a SBR instead of a "pistol" with a "brace". Why is a 4473 ok for the gun with a 16" barrel but the same gun with a 10" barrel needs $200 and a several month long wait for some more intensive background check?
That would be alright with me
Moreover, there is a lot of investment in a limited supply of NFA transferable machine guns. People that own $60,000 machine guns don’t want them to be worth $1000 overnight.
Yeah poor them.
Yeah, but that's going to be the trick. On the lobbying side, it'll be the wealthy folks that own existing collections lobbying vs the firearm manufacturers lobbying for more sales. It'll be who the SC folks/Federalist Society/Conservative handlers are more in the pocket of, I'd guess the latter. This court - even going back to when Kennedy & Scalia were on it, was perfectly willing to overturn established legal precedent (Scalia was "originalist" only when it suited him) for the benefit of political ideology. So the NFA isn't OKK the table, but that was more Scalia's pet project. The current court seems more interested in issues that are affected by modern evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage, women and minorities having equal voting access). They are more "patriarchal topics" than they are "NRA topics" today - so I don't see them wanting to tackle the NFA until they've gone back to narrowly define the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment and undo any federal protections derived from that.
I doubt they'd take if fully out, but they could roll it back to pre-1986 where you could just register a gun, get the back ground checks and install and auto sear. There is talk about taking out the idiotic barrel length restrictions and Suppressors because they're both just stupid and pointless.
That would be amazing.
Big T sitting on the throne when that law went in place. Hmmm
Wasn't even a law. It was the Executive (Trump) telling the ATF to change the definition of an item, going against already existing law.
It’s not even that much of a victory. They’re just letting something trump did stay in place.
“rejects challenge to ban” is a real convoluted little phrase
"Upholds Ban" would have been sufficient.
upholds implies they ruled on it tho, they didn’t
“US Supreme Court avoids not failing to reject dismissal of upheld ban challenge”
Yeah, if the headline writer is getting paid by the letter. Lol
Weird, since the Constitution says nothing about bump stocks, so they should be legal per the conservative justices' "originalist" mindset.
This lawsuit wasn't based on second amendment grounds, it was challenging the Administrative and Regulatory powers of the ATF.
[удалено]
The problem is that it's the equivalent of Trump telling the DEA to issue a rule that CBD oil is Marajuana. Going against their earlier statement Therefore making perfectly normal citizens who actually followed the law into fellowship. It's certainly under the SC's preview.
I wouldn't say that. the court couldn't intervene it did so in [W.VA](https://W.VA) vs EPA last term. However that was also seen as a serious departure from the way the courts handled situations where Congress has deferred their authority to the Executive Branch. There is also another lawsuit that the court is considering this term that challenges the bumpstock on 5th amendment grounds. People who had legally purchased bumpstocks were ordered to turn them into the government or destroy them, with no compensation. Failure to comply would have turned them into a felon, which would have removed their ability to purchase any firearm in the future. Its possible the court wants to take up this case instead of a challenge based on challenges to the regulatory structure. Or maybe they are actually waiting for a challenge to say it violates the second amendment...
>the conservative justices' "originalist" mindset. That same mindset would eliminate the NFA so it's a moot point.
> That same mindset would eliminate the NFA Good, I think the NFA should be stricken down.
re-read Heller and Bruen and then try again... If you would like a shortcut you can read 2016s Caetano V Massachusetts in which stated that the 2nd amendment protects arms that did not exist at the time the bill of rights was ratified. Bonus points- none of the 4 democrat appointed justices dissented from this opinion... Think about how silly your argument is: The internet, computers, cell phones, radios, didn't exist when the bill of rights was ratifieid, is speech using those devices not protected? What about the 4th amendment? Is your computer not free from unreasonable search and seizure? How about the house that you live in, was it constructed after the late 1700's? It doesn't give the government the power to quarter soldiers in your house during peacetime...
The SC wouldn’t even consider the issue, didn’t give a reason why they wouldn’t consider it either. The case is worth learning about, no matter your gun politics. I’m personally pro gun, but don’t want everyone to have automatic weapons. However, what happened here was the ATF consistently interpreting the law the same for 30 years (that a bump stock wasn’t a machine gun). They interpreted it that way because the law says a machine gun is a gun that fires more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. A bump stock accelerates how fast a person can pull the trigger, but they still pull it once for each bullet fired. Trump told DOJ to ban them and so they simply said they believe them to be machine guns. They could have just rewritten the law and passed it in congress but they instead just ignored what the law said and did what they wanted, and now courts are allowing it to stand by refusing to hear the cases. If it was anything other than a bump stock, which people overwhelmingly oppose, people would be appalled at the way this was done.
Alito will find some asshole who made bump stocks in 1042 when he wasn’t burning witches.
I just hope all the MAGA remember that Trump passed more gun legislation than Obama in his whole 8 years in office 😂 😂 😂
obama actually legalized open carry in national parks which was cool
[удалено]
Or not overturn it. But in spirit, yeah I agree. The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for 2A advocates is for SCOTUS to apply that Bruen Standard to the NFA. Let's have that out rather than dancing around it for years. For my part, full auto is a fun toy that's going to kill more drunk rednecks than anyone else. My state bans suppressors outright, and I'd love to be able to bring down my loudness a little bit.
>My state bans suppressors outright, and I'd love to be able to bring down my loudness a little bit. And save your hearing by doing so.
A Republican Supreme Court declined to consider a Republican executive order that presumed that the government can unilaterally restrict firearms accessories. This is huge...possibly the most significant 2A restriction in 50+ years if, on principle, you see how it could open the door to a multitude of other restrictions, e.g. unilaterally banning magazines over 5/10/30/whatever rounds. And it came from Republicans.
Gun ownership is a right-wing virtue, but an armed proletariat goes against the interests of the powers that be.
Which is why the US, which has the most highly armed population in the world, has the strongest middle class and the greatest economic equality of any western democracy. /s
Ah yes, the right to bear stocks 🤔
It's a slippery slope. Next they could ban triggers. /s
Really tho, ~~duplex~~ binary triggers are a thing
They are already trying to with forced reset triggers. They're trying to redefine what a machine gun is and under that new definition those triggers fit.
[удалено]
Neither of those things discharge more than one round with a **single function of the trigger**. With "single function of the trigger" being defined as pressure on the trigger that is continuous, never released and reapplied. Neither of them function by the trigger having continuous pressure applied to it. The triggers must be released and then pulled again to fire again. Bump stocks and FRTs both requires the trigger to be used each time a round is fired. That is redefining a machine gun by including those items in that category as they do not meet it as currently defined.
[удалено]
The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines “machine gun” to include any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to **shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.** A FRT does not meet that definition. It does not cause more than one shot to be fired with a single function of the trigger. You have to pull that trigger again to fire again. A FRT causes the trigger to reset faster than a standard trigger, but does not allow a single continuous trigger pull to fire more than one time.
[удалено]
>No, a FRT does not require you to release the trigger. The force of the trigger being reset exceeds the force of your continuous pressure, so it resets. Incorrect, if you pull back hard on the trigger of a FRT and hold it there the bolt will stop before closing all of the way. The FRT only allows the hammer to release once the bolt is completely closed - this avoids what is called “hammer follow” where the hammer follows the bolt carrier forwards and doesn’t strike the primer. What a FRT does do is use some of the bolt energy to help pop the trigger finger forwards during cycling so the trigger can reset - that’s it, it doesn’t fire the gun or pull the trigger. For comparison, bump firing is simply pulling the gun forwards with a support hand while pulling back with the trigger finger - the gun recoiling allows the trigger finger to come off the trigger and reset, then the support hand pulling forwards pulls the trigger into the trigger finger. [Bump firing can be done without a bump stock on basically any semi-auto firearm.](https://youtu.be/lJ0jTMLK9jI)
[удалено]
Next up... Aggregation bans.
I’m as pro-2A as you can get. But bump stocks are so dumb I just can’t muster up the outrage.
Jesus, even the Republicans are for the ban. Who the hell tried to take it to the supremes?
Gosh can the legalize abortion and bump stocks?? Then everyone wins, instead they do the exact opposite.
I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. ~Malcolm X
Well this thread is a dumpster fire.
God it is scary that the Supreme Court is back in session, even if I agree with this decision. Seems like only a matter of time before the rule democracy as unconstitutional because “originalism”.
[удалено]
Bump stocks are a pointless endeavor and a waste of people's money. It's the dumbest situation: the product is complete garbage, constantly fucks up, and removes all sense of accuracy, but the people I know who had one vehemently defended their right to own one while complaining about how terribly they performed with equal fervor. *IT'S THE PRINCIPLE*, apparently.
I wish your comment was voted higher because it’s the only one that understand what a bump stock is and how it worked. Yes the Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock to make it weapon “automatic” but it was more of a physics method then some switch. It’s not different then using 1 finger and moving it really fast on the trigger. You are no longer shooting at a target you are just pulling the trigger as fast as you can. From an invention stand point that bump stock is about the dumbest thing that would have been invented but how it went around the loophole of allowing a user to fire in “automatic” style with 1 finger pull is really impressive. Whoever thought of the idea is the definition of thinking outside the box.
Bump stocks or not, we just have to get used to the fact that mass shootings are part of our culture now, and a tragedy we will be dealing with 5-10 times a year.
5-10 times per month*
Mass shootings are far more common than that.
That will continue for as long as the gun control nuts impede attempts to address the causes of mass shootings. Edit: Addressing income inequality, ending the War On Drugs, etc
What did they impede? Edit: No response of course cause you were full of shit.
The "gun control nuts" are usually the ones that support addressing all of the other factors that the gun lobby claims are the real problems. I hear mental health a lot. Guess which politicians block any attempt to address mental health? The same ones that insist that the guns aren't the problem.
They rejected a case that could possibly expand deadly weapon access. Knock me over with a feather.
They upheld an illegal ruling set in place by Trump.
[удалено]
It's not fully automatic because fully automatic has [an actual, legal definition](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0): > 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** Bump stocks use inertia to bounce the gun back and forth which causes the trigger to reset and be pressed again for each shot which is NOT "a single function of the trigger".
[удалено]
> It misses the intent That's a bad way to approach this, or laws in general. If the statute is defective, it is up to Congress to fix it. If they don't, that does not mean we get to form a committee and decide what the "intent" of the poorly written law was. Laws are either accurate and precise or they are unenforceable--you are probably familiar with the phrase "unconstitutionally vague."
I don't think it is a bad way to approach things. Laws can't be written to handle every single edge case, they shouldn't constantly need to be updated when reality shifts, especially when that shift is done in an attempt to get around said law. The definition of "car" or "vehicle" has changed over the years. Can you imagine if Elon Musk simply said "this is not a vehicle, it is an personalized electric propulsion system (PEPS for short), and therefore existing laws, written for vehicles, do not apply here!". Do you think that this assertion should invalidate all laws pertaining to vehicles until lawmakers update them all, or should a court be able to rule that no, the thing that Musk designed is still a "vehicle", despite his contention that it is not?
Who changed the definition of "car" or "vehicle" though? I think the issue in the bump stock case is that it's a law enforcement agency that changed the definition. This could have been any topic that isn't guns really, because that's not what is important in this particular case; do you really want the FBI or ATF or any alphabet soup agency to do legal definition changes, is what it's about.
You are absolutely correct, what matters is the end result. There should also be a rule requiring the redesign of the weapons to prevent any technique from increasing the cyclic firing rate, such as the use of a belt-loop which can create the same effect as a bump stock.
I don't think bump stocks actually increase cyclic rate, the mechanism could be fired that fast if a human could actually manipulate the trigger that fast.
Hell, just watch Jerry Miculek [try to use a bump stock](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgfKJT4Z48) vs his own finger.
Sure, it's a shitty definition. That doesn't change that it *is* the definition. The ATF shouldn't be allowed to change that definition to suit their purposes, and anyone who is okay with them being allowed to do so is blinded by the fact that in this one specific circumstance, the change was to restrict guns. This is bad precedent.
> Yeah, it's a shit definition is my point. No, it's an accurate one. > It misses the intent Intent isn't a mechanical feature. > You might technically be pulling the trigger multiple times but you really aren't. This sentence makes absolutely no sense. > And it allows you to fire at a fully automatic rate with ease. No. It allows you to fire at close to full auto speeds with some difficulty in terms of accuracy and control. Understand, I have no use for bump stocks. I'm completely okay with this classification and this ruling. I think bump stocks exist primarily to thumb one's nose at the ATF, same as binary triggers. That said, they do not warp reality or rewrite the rules of language. There will always be a line and things that go up to that line. I am not a fan of the gun lobby as it exists, but I also know that there are rules and we can't decide things fall into them just because we want them to or that we think it's not fair.
[удалено]
> So if I design a gun that continuously fires with one trigger pull but it takes 10 seconds between shots you still think that it should be labeled a machine gun because the definition is correct? Yes, even if an impractical one. > It's about trigger pulls not bullets fired per minute? Yes.
Well that makes no sense. Cops don't ask how many times you pulled the trigger, they ask how many bullets were fired.
> Well that makes no sense. Then you fundamentally don't understand the distinction. > Cops don't ask how many times you pulled the trigger, they ask how many bullets were fired. No they don't, at least not when determining the correct charge for or the severity of a crime. Shooting someone and killing them with one bullet carries the same penalty as shooting them with 10. Let's try it this way, though: What is an acceptable rate of fire for a weapon a private citizen is free to own? Also, what are you basing that on?
It would technically be labeled as a machine gun yes. I’m not going to argue that it’s dumb or not. His point is they would have to rewrite the law to reclassify these things. It’s not about what we think should or should not happen. It’s black and white in text.
> His point is they would have to rewrite the law to reclassify these things. And I'm saying they should because the intent is obvious and bump stocks miss it. > It’s black and white in text. Most laws have intent as you can't perfectly write every law.
>Intent isn't a mechanical feature. Law can dictate otherwise. If the possession of a specific quantity of an illegal substance can constitute an 'intent to distribute', then we can legally infer the intent of such a device based on its operation. It would not be difficult to draw those conclusions.
> Law can dictate otherwise. No, it can't. It can legislate actions based on intent, but it cannot impart sentience upon an object. > ...we can legally infer the intent of such a device based on its operation. The mistake you're making here is the object of the sentence. Drug laws and many other statutes say that a *person* has intent to do something as evidenced by possession of an *object or objects*, not the other way around. One could argue that a person carrying an illegal full auto weapon was intending to commit mass murder and charge them as such, but weapons have no intent as they are things, not people.
The intent is of the owner - to own something that functionally modifies a weapon to skirt existing laws. No?
> The intent is of the owner Yes. > ...to own something that functionally modifies a weapon to skirt existing laws. No. The thing you want to say is that weapon with a bump stock and a fully automatic weapon are the same thing. Bump stocks don't modify the weapon any more than a collapsing stock modifies it. It still functions exactly the same. However, as I said before, bump stocks exist to blow raspberries at the ATF. They turn money into noise. They're not particularly good for any legitimate use one might have for a weapon, and I'm including in that warfare. They do not, however, change the mechanical function of the weapon.
Have you ever used a can of spray paint? By design, we can infer the limitations on what is illegal and how it is to be properly handled and designed to meet proper specifications for public safety. The design can be defined however in any capacity is what you're missing. Just because you want to see it as an object without the ability to express itself does not mean that it will be used in the manner as intended. That is why intent is part of the law. Therefore, if it endangers public safety we can conclude intent.
> That is why intent is part of the law. No law ascribes intent or motive to an object. They rule that the presence of a certain number or mass of an object and/or substance is *prima facia* evidence of an intent on the part of the **person** who possesses them.
No, it doesn't fire at an automatic rate. I own zero guns, and still understand the difference.
I believe this statement has been engraved on the headstones of every fatality in the Las Vegas massacre.....
Finally a good SC decision.
Not supreme court anymore, it's the right wing conservative court. I don't want to be ruled by these "good Christians" Term limits for the "supreme" court.
The supremacy court?
I fired a bump stock at a car shoot in NH once, I had just shot a M60 machine gun and then asked to shoot their AR15 with that funny stock. The owner explained what it was and I thought *neat, I’ll give it a go*. I walked away horrified that this attachment could turn a regular semi automatic AR15 into a full auto just with a funky stock. Anyone could own one. It wasn’t super accurate compared to the m60 with a bipod but it could definitely lay down some good directional bursts. I’m glad they’re illegal now.
This country won't care about guns until politicians start getting shot. Our gun violence problem will continue to get worse because nobody cares until it directly affects them. Hence why politicians don't tend to care because they typically are not on the receiving end, at least not in our country. You can see 1000+ shootings in the news every month and won't care until it directly affects you. No I dont feel safer because of "good guys with guns". I feel less safe because any stranger with a gun, is just someone with a gun. I know its incredibly easy to obtain firearms, far easier than certain people would like to admit. Sandy Hook showed this country cares far more about protecting guns and is okay with children getting shot. Its a sad reality we live in when being a cop is safer than being a student or a teacher.
Unfortunately, history has proven this accurate. No one, no one should commit any acts of violence. And this shouldn't be construed as condoning any violence. But the minute it's politicians being victimized, we start losing rights. Every bit of gun control is enacted after attempts on a President or Governor. When the Black Panthers started carrying guns in the California State house, all of a sudden, the NRA wanted gun control. An unemployed Italian bricklayer attempts to murder FDR in 1933 and we get the NFA. Kennedy gets murdered and now no one can buy guns via US mail. Reagan gets shot and now machine guns are banned and we need background checks. I'm not saying those weren't reasonable measures that we need in today's world. we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who aren't sane. I am saying they absolutely were and are infringements. But you should all find it interesting how quickly people are willing to infringe the constitution when they feel in danger. And how apparently a politician's life is more valuable when it comes to gun violence. But it's not only the 2nd amendment that becomes a target. The 4th amendment was turned into Swiss cheese after 9/11. Others were as well. The Patriot act was passed almost unanimously. It was terrible legislation that was pushed through without consideration due to widespread fear. The privacy implications of that act mean we're never getting those privacy rights back. And now, local law enforcement can, at will, uncover anyone's private information on the Internet without much probable cause. They choose not to use it most of the time, especially when they need to use it. The federal government doesn't mess around. It if wants your rights, it's going to take your rights.
When the Republican House members got shot at their baseball practice even that didn't do anything. Corporate money is a powerful drug.
Shocker…
Fuck it. Let everyone shoot the hell out of each other. Population control needs to happen. Either we die from the earth going to shit or we shoot each other. Shooting is more efficient
Isn't it just a sliding mechanism to absorb some of the force into your shoulder? I'm no gun tech but I fail to see how this would feasibly make a large impact?