The SCOTUS majority decision itself says so:
> For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) consistently took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under §5845(b). ATF abruptly changed course when a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more.
I have no idea what he actually did. I was just sharing what the court stated. Regardless, it doesn't matter to me if he used a bump stock or not. My right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be restricted because some scumbag murderer commits crimes. Punish him, not the rest of us law-abiding citizens.
So, the simple fact that a semi-auto rifle does NOT magically turn into an auto rifle when a bumpstock is equipped went straight over the other 3 SC judges' heads?
The second amendment is to prevent the government from restricting guns. As such, there hould only be 3 criteria to determine if someone should be prevented from having a gun.
- are you a US citizen? If not a US citizen, no gun for you.
- are you age of majority? If not an adult, no gun for you (can use in presence of someone who is 18)
- are you on parole for a violent crime? - felons have limited rights until probation is over
This is also likely very good news for Forced Reset Triggers.
But it also has a poison pill from Alito saying congress could amend the law. Because this is a separation of powers, not a 2A case, we don't know how that would play. Keep an eye on your congress critters.
Unfortunately the court did not go far enough. They only said the ATF ban on bumpstocks and how it was PROCESSED was done incorrectly. No ruling on the bumpstocks themselves.
They said explicitly that congress can still come in and pass a law to ban them. At that point they would have to wait to address the item itself.
Also, many states, including my own, also have bans on their possession on the state level which is not effected by this ruling.
I'm happy to see any SCOTUS decision that invalidates gun rights restrictions, but I do wish this did something to protect our constitutionally-protected rights. By deciding that bump stocks are legal because they don't meet the statutory definition of machineguns, the court has basically acknowledged that statutory restrictions on the 2A are fine. I'd much rather see bump stocks be legal because the constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms (including machineguns), than see bump stocks be legal because they aren't statutorily banned machineguns.
I'm honestly not sure. This is one of those things that I've discussed with libertarian, conservative, and other pro-gun friends and I've never heard an argument that made me totally comfortable. On the one hand, I know a lot of idiots, angry drunks, and other dangerous people and I wouldn't want them to have man-portable nukes. On the other hand, I don't know who should get to determine which of us are unsafe or which weapons are too dangerous. I do know that I fully believe that citizens should absolutely be able to keep and bear any arms that our civilian police use. I have never understood the argument that [whatever weapon] is a dangerous weapon of war, and therefore only minimally-trained civilian peace officers should be allowed to have them.
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high for "protection". The court didn't say these devices are protected by the 2A, they just said they aren't illegal machineguns the way the current law is written. They acknowledged that the law can be changed by congress to ban these devices (which doesn't sound good for being protected by the 2A), and they didn't suggest that the law itself was a 2A violation (which means they seem to think bans on machineguns are fine).
Edit to include the court's language on this:
>There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
I'm not. I am an anarchist. The state is a criminal organization to me.
"The court didn't say these devices are protected by the 2A, they just said they aren't illegal machineguns the way the current law is written."
Yeah, I know. The 2A is 99% infringed in my opinion
"They acknowledged that the law can be changed by congress to ban these devices (which doesn't sound good for being protected by the 2A), and they didn't suggest that the law itself was a 2A violation (which means they seem to think bans on machineguns are fine)."
Yep.
All I meant was I hope they would fuck with people less
You are correct in the sense that this was not a 2A challenge, but they directly stated that the law can just be amended by congress to add bump stocks to the ban. That's a pretty clear signal that they will enforce the law, and not that they think it is a 2A violation but were constrained by the narrow challenge.
Are they trying to say that the Vegas shooter used a bump stock?
The SCOTUS majority decision itself says so: > For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) consistently took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under §5845(b). ATF abruptly changed course when a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more.
Yeah I don’t buy that he used a bump stock for a second. That was a belt fed weapon or I’m a moose.
I have no idea what he actually did. I was just sharing what the court stated. Regardless, it doesn't matter to me if he used a bump stock or not. My right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be restricted because some scumbag murderer commits crimes. Punish him, not the rest of us law-abiding citizens.
They were always legal ... its government interference that is always illegal [ unconstitutional ]
So, the simple fact that a semi-auto rifle does NOT magically turn into an auto rifle when a bumpstock is equipped went straight over the other 3 SC judges' heads?
No it didn’t go straight over their head. They understand the concept but are so biased they don’t care.
Can't really fathom it. Did you see Sotamayer's statement lol.. As if the bump stock eliminates the need for trigger engagement
The second amendment is to prevent the government from restricting guns. As such, there hould only be 3 criteria to determine if someone should be prevented from having a gun. - are you a US citizen? If not a US citizen, no gun for you. - are you age of majority? If not an adult, no gun for you (can use in presence of someone who is 18) - are you on parole for a violent crime? - felons have limited rights until probation is over
This is also likely very good news for Forced Reset Triggers. But it also has a poison pill from Alito saying congress could amend the law. Because this is a separation of powers, not a 2A case, we don't know how that would play. Keep an eye on your congress critters.
Holy fuck! Michael Cargill was the one who took this to the Supreme Court and WON?!? lol, what a fuckin' legend. He's a maniac. God bless him. ;)
Unfortunately the court did not go far enough. They only said the ATF ban on bumpstocks and how it was PROCESSED was done incorrectly. No ruling on the bumpstocks themselves. They said explicitly that congress can still come in and pass a law to ban them. At that point they would have to wait to address the item itself. Also, many states, including my own, also have bans on their possession on the state level which is not effected by this ruling.
I'm happy to see any SCOTUS decision that invalidates gun rights restrictions, but I do wish this did something to protect our constitutionally-protected rights. By deciding that bump stocks are legal because they don't meet the statutory definition of machineguns, the court has basically acknowledged that statutory restrictions on the 2A are fine. I'd much rather see bump stocks be legal because the constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms (including machineguns), than see bump stocks be legal because they aren't statutorily banned machineguns.
[удалено]
I'm honestly not sure. This is one of those things that I've discussed with libertarian, conservative, and other pro-gun friends and I've never heard an argument that made me totally comfortable. On the one hand, I know a lot of idiots, angry drunks, and other dangerous people and I wouldn't want them to have man-portable nukes. On the other hand, I don't know who should get to determine which of us are unsafe or which weapons are too dangerous. I do know that I fully believe that citizens should absolutely be able to keep and bear any arms that our civilian police use. I have never understood the argument that [whatever weapon] is a dangerous weapon of war, and therefore only minimally-trained civilian peace officers should be allowed to have them.
You don’t. That’s the best part
Nice. Hopefully binary triggers an w/e else will be protected now too. Though I will never expect anything good from the state.
I wouldn't get your hopes up too high for "protection". The court didn't say these devices are protected by the 2A, they just said they aren't illegal machineguns the way the current law is written. They acknowledged that the law can be changed by congress to ban these devices (which doesn't sound good for being protected by the 2A), and they didn't suggest that the law itself was a 2A violation (which means they seem to think bans on machineguns are fine). Edit to include the court's language on this: >There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.
I'm not. I am an anarchist. The state is a criminal organization to me. "The court didn't say these devices are protected by the 2A, they just said they aren't illegal machineguns the way the current law is written." Yeah, I know. The 2A is 99% infringed in my opinion "They acknowledged that the law can be changed by congress to ban these devices (which doesn't sound good for being protected by the 2A), and they didn't suggest that the law itself was a 2A violation (which means they seem to think bans on machineguns are fine)." Yep. All I meant was I hope they would fuck with people less
Well, we share that hope . . . but I'm not holding my breath.
Me either lol
It's mandate in this case was only address the PROCESS the ATF put in the ban. I wish they went a little further / didn't have such a narrow case.
You are correct in the sense that this was not a 2A challenge, but they directly stated that the law can just be amended by congress to add bump stocks to the ban. That's a pretty clear signal that they will enforce the law, and not that they think it is a 2A violation but were constrained by the narrow challenge.