Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

26
Garland v Cargill will be argued before SCOTUS today.
Since 1986, Congress has prohibited the transfer or possession of any new "machinegun." 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(1). The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq., defines a "machinegun" as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The statutory definition also encompasses "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." Ibid.

A "bump stock" is a device designed and intended to permit users to convert a
semiautomatic rifle so that the rifle can be fired continuously with a single pull of the
trigger, discharging potentially hundreds of bullets per minute. In 2018, after a mass
shooting in Las Vegas carried out using bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published an interpretive rule concluding that bump
stocks are machineguns as defined in Section 5845(b). In the decision below, the en
banc Fifth Circuit held that the ATF rule was unlawful because the statutory definition of
"machinegun" does not encompass bump stocks.

The question presented is as follows:
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)
because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... 0976qp.pdf

Garland v Cargill
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... 2-976.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

30
The Supreme Court appeared torn Wednesday about a challenge to a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns and was used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The high court is weighing whether the Trump administration followed federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault-style rifles in 2017. Many of the weapons were equipped with bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. More than 1,000 rounds were fired into the crowd in 11 minutes, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds more.

The arguments largely focused on whether guns with a bump stock can be considered illegal machine guns under federal law. A Texas gun shop owner argues that bump stocks don’t change the core function of a semi-automatic weapon enough to make it illegal. The Biden administration says bump stocks fall firmly under the legal definition of machine gun. The latest gun case to come before the justices offers a fresh test for a court with a conservative supermajority to define the limits of gun restrictions in an era where mass shootings are prevalent. Conservative justices raised questions about whether machine-gun laws dating to the 1930s apply to bump stocks and about the Justice Department’s previous finding that the accessories were legal.

“Intuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “I think the question is, why didn’t Congress pass that legislation to make this cover it more clearly?” Justices from the court’s liberal wing suggested it was “common sense” that bump stocks would fall under laws aimed at Prohibition-era violence from gangsters such as Al Capone. “This is in the heartland of what they were concerned about, which is anything that takes just a little human action to produce more than one shot,” Justice Elena Kagan said. Federal appeals courts have been divided over the bump stock rule. A different case at the court challenges a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders, stemming from a landmark 2022 decision in which the six-justice conservative majority expanded gun rights.

The bump stock case is not directly about the Second Amendment. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority in imposing the ban. The agency had previously decided bump stocks should not be classified as machine guns and therefore not be banned.
https://triblive.com/news/world/supreme ... mp-stocks/

This is an appeal by the Biden administration from a decision an en banc panel of the 5th Circuit that overturned a district court ruling for ATF and a 3 judge panel of 5th Circuit that also ruled for ATF. The en banc panel ruled 13-3 that bump stocks are not machine guns.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

32
sikacz wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:53 pm ATF was out of bounds on their extended redefinition. Hopefully the court sends a message, that redefining is not permissible in the manner done and if legislators and administration want to change requirements they need to pass a law.
That's where I'm at, a bump stock isn't a machine gun but if Congress and the president want to ban the sale of bump stocks, then the way to do it is a new law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

33
highdesert wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:20 pm
sikacz wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:53 pm ATF was out of bounds on their extended redefinition. Hopefully the court sends a message, that redefining is not permissible in the manner done and if legislators and administration want to change requirements they need to pass a law.
That's where I'm at, a bump stock isn't a machine gun but if Congress and the president want to ban the sale of bump stocks, then the way to do it is a new law.
Yup.

Screw the "it's legal, it's not legal" game ATF plays with things. Arbitrarily redefining of what is or is not constitutionally legal is not within ATFs authority.

I couldn't care less about bump stocks. I care very much about legal consistency.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

34
featureless wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:36 pm
highdesert wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:20 pm
sikacz wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:53 pm ATF was out of bounds on their extended redefinition. Hopefully the court sends a message, that redefining is not permissible in the manner done and if legislators and administration want to change requirements they need to pass a law.
That's where I'm at, a bump stock isn't a machine gun but if Congress and the president want to ban the sale of bump stocks, then the way to do it is a new law.
Yup.

Screw the "it's legal, it's not legal" game ATF plays with things. Arbitrarily redefining of what is or is not constitutionally legal is not within ATFs authority.

I couldn't care less about bump stocks. I care very much about legal consistency.
Same.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

35
sikacz wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:17 pm
featureless wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:36 pm
highdesert wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 5:20 pm
sikacz wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2024 3:53 pm ATF was out of bounds on their extended redefinition. Hopefully the court sends a message, that redefining is not permissible in the manner done and if legislators and administration want to change requirements they need to pass a law.
That's where I'm at, a bump stock isn't a machine gun but if Congress and the president want to ban the sale of bump stocks, then the way to do it is a new law.
Yup.

Screw the "it's legal, it's not legal" game ATF plays with things. Arbitrarily redefining of what is or is not constitutionally legal is not within ATFs authority.

I couldn't care less about bump stocks. I care very much about legal consistency.
Same.
Me too.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

37
Mikeinmich wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:46 am I listened to the beginning of an NPR article with Nina Totenberg about the case yesterday. She instantly messed up the law and said that machine guns were banned in the 1930s because of the whole gangster/ Bonnie and Clyde etc. problem. I expected better.
I heard a couple of NPR/PBS stories and they seemed to have the same "fact sheet" they based their stories on. I'm sure Everytown was pleased. None of them explained the difference between Semi and Full Auto, and they all mentioned "machine gun" and "600 rounds per minute".

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

38
Mikeinmich wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:46 am I listened to the beginning of an NPR article with Nina Totenberg about the case yesterday. She instantly messed up the law and said that machine guns were banned in the 1930s because of the whole gangster/ Bonnie and Clyde etc. problem. I expected better.
C-SPAN got this wrong as well in their intro to the livestream, which should surprise no one.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?533774-1/ ... l-argument

The government made some absurd arguments, but at least half of the justices seemed to fail to grasp the statutory definition bit and the technicalities and got hung up on rate of fire.

I liked some of Gorsuch's questions since they had more to do with the question at hand.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

39
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:20 pm
Mikeinmich wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:46 am I listened to the beginning of an NPR article with Nina Totenberg about the case yesterday. She instantly messed up the law and said that machine guns were banned in the 1930s because of the whole gangster/ Bonnie and Clyde etc. problem. I expected better.
C-SPAN got this wrong as well in their intro to the livestream, which should surprise no one.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?533774-1/ ... l-argument

The government made some absurd arguments, but at least half of the justices seemed to fail to grasp the statutory definition bit and the technicalities and got hung up on rate of fire.

I liked some of Gorsuch's questions since they had more to do with the question at hand.

They weren’t banned but, by the time of the 1930s, heavily taxed $200 in 1930s money or $3,700 in today’s money and registered. Kinda like a change in the old C&W song “If you got the money honey, I got the gun’”.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

40
TrueTexan wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2024 6:02 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Mar 01, 2024 12:20 pm
Mikeinmich wrote: Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:46 am I listened to the beginning of an NPR article with Nina Totenberg about the case yesterday. She instantly messed up the law and said that machine guns were banned in the 1930s because of the whole gangster/ Bonnie and Clyde etc. problem. I expected better.
C-SPAN got this wrong as well in their intro to the livestream, which should surprise no one.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?533774-1/ ... l-argument

The government made some absurd arguments, but at least half of the justices seemed to fail to grasp the statutory definition bit and the technicalities and got hung up on rate of fire.

I liked some of Gorsuch's questions since they had more to do with the question at hand.

They weren’t banned but, by the time of the 1930s, heavily taxed $200 in 1930s money or $3,700 in today’s money and registered. Kinda like a change in the old C&W song “If you got the money honey, I got the gun’”.
Absolutely it was about making it unaffordable for the masses in the 30’s. There was probably a sweet spot for the regular Joe and Jane in the early 1960’s when some military rifles were still available and imports came in from overseas. Two hundred was still a lot of money when you consider housing cost about $20k and cars several thousand or so, but definitely doable.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

42
featureless wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2024 6:54 pm California went ahead and banned them. No NFA items allowed here unless you're in the movie industry (with the proper armorer permit), of course. Can't not have the cool shit in the movies.
I bet those pieces were made available to the right people after the movie.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

43
sikacz wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2024 7:17 pm
featureless wrote: Sun Mar 03, 2024 6:54 pm California went ahead and banned them. No NFA items allowed here unless you're in the movie industry (with the proper armorer permit), of course. Can't not have the cool shit in the movies.
I bet those pieces were made available to the right people after the movie.
It's funny (?), California just lost a lawsuit over its law about firearms advertising to minors but is all in on supporting gunplay in the movie industry (because minors don't watch movies?). Can't fuck with the tax base, not even for the children, it seems.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests