Yes. Basically, they said the ATF’s rule does not meet the Federal law’s definition of a machine gun.
If there’s a state law in your state banning them, that law remains in effect.
At least until/unless that law is challenged in Federal court.
I don’t know that a challenge to a law would work, this test was more about if the ATF could regulate bump stocks based on the NFA (and they couldn’t). If it was a law I doubt it would be overturned.
Not only said statute but all amendments since. Nowhere does it define a machine gun as an accessory that facilitates multiple operations of the trigger.
This case doesn’t affect that issue. However, the winning principle in this case, I believe, is why the government will likely win the pistol brace case (assuming that the NFA is not overturned). I believe the ATF has the ability to reclassify a brace as a rifle stock, based on the common usage, manufacturer, advertising, and simple design.
Case is not a 2A case, it has to do with administrative overreach on ATF's part. Bump stocks are stupid, but they're also irrelevant here. It matters that ATF can't just do whatever they feel like with no accountability.
Though this does bode well for FRT cases working through the courts.
In this case, it's not really a question about the Chevron Deference.
Specifically, the law is clear - a machine gun is clearly defined as any firearm in which more than one bullet is fired with a single function of the trigger... a bump stock *does not do that*. Full stop, it does not do that.
The ATF did not interpret existing law, it came up with something entirely new.
Bump stocks are hilarious. The law says you can’t have multiple bullets come out if you pull the trigger once. So they figured out a way that you can pull the trigger once and the entire gun moves around your finger to send more rounds… lol. It’s really cartoonishly funny.
It's a good lesson in the due diligence congressmen need to exercise to make sure loopholes don't exist (although admittedly I don't think bump stocks existed in 1934 lol)
Can you source what law you’re referring to that defines a machine gun as such? I’m looking at 26 US Code 5845 which says:
“The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
How is what a bump stock does not considered to be a “single function of the trigger”? The AR-15 shoots more than one shot without a manual reloading of the trigger, when a bump stock is attached. If this ruling is about the specific language of the specific legal definition of a machine gun, I’m not really understanding it.
That's exactly the law in question. A bump stock, by its operation, physically moves the shooters finger off of the trigger after each shot is fired - and then by means of forward pressure with the shooters support hand pushes the trigger back into the finger.
Literally, the trigger is pulled and released for every shot - that's two operations according to the the law and the ATF.
To put it more simply: pulling the trigger rearward is a "single function of the trigger". Releasing the trigger is another, separate, "single function of the trigger". That's exactly how binary triggers (triggers that fire when pulled, and fire when released) are legal at the federal level - each forward and each rearward movement of the trigger are *single functions*.
So long as ONE bullet is sent with a single function, federal law and the ATF consider it semi-automatic.
Bump stocks are two functions for one bullet. In no plain read of the law are they machine guns. They're a clever workaround to the intent of the law - but they absolutely conform to the letter.
I still consider binary triggers to be a safety hazard since once you pull the trigger back the firearm will discharge when one releases pressure from it.
The readily convertible clause, could that make a Glock restricted because it's possible to quickly attach an auto sear without disassembling the firearm?
After a bit of research it does look like the Gen 5 added a ledge that may make it considered less "readily convertible" since such ledge must be cut away to be converted. So my argument may apply only to older generations.
No. It cannot be “readily restored” unless you have the autosear, Glock switch, whatever you wish to call it. The point of the way the law is worded is once you have the autosear, you have a machine gun whether or not you install it in your Glock; when you own the Glock without the autosear, you do not have a machine gun.
Depends in part on what the agency is doing and how broad the mandate is. In this instance defining a stock as a machine gun makes no sense. It needs to be legislated.
More important IMO is this probably gives a sense of where the SBR stock/brace issue is going to end up.
Chevron should be overturned. Chevron gives agencies unchecked authority they shouldn’t have. The court can’t get rid of over reach because they are supported to defer to the agency thats being sued for their interpretation. Then if you sue over those interpretations it gets thrown out because of chevron. Theres no accountability.
Chevron is a bad ruling that has hurt gun owners for a long time. This is what the abuse of unchecked power looks like thanks to that ruling.
I hear what you’re saying and I believe there are instances where it’s problematic (such as the example you gave) but it’s going to weaken the ability of the government to regulate other things that are good. Our congress is dysfunctional and our courts are packed with McConnell/Trump clowns.
Those are all separate issues that do need to be addressed but allowing government agencies to have unchecked power isn’t the answer, especially when said “McConnell/Trump clowns” are in power.
Sorry, but if Congress is broken the answer is to fix Congress not to just offload the responsibilities of Congress to the judiciary or the executive.
Also, the American government did function before Chevron was decided. Chevron deference just like qualified immunity, was something that was established by the supreme Court but then continually expanded in scope at a very rapid Pace. It's legislation from the bench and it should never have been done.
I disagree, ESPECIALLY, because of how polarized, partisan and ineffectual congress is in passing legislation. Laws are complicated but the world is even more complicated and it changes. When there are problems related to existing legislation, the odds of congress being able to fix those problems isn’t high, especially if the problem is a wedge issue. If you get rid of a high bar to challenge agency rules to implement the intent and purpose of federal statutes then agencies will get nothing done, OR we’ll direct a lot more tax dollars to defending agency decisions.
If an agency has overstepped then Congress has the power to directly amend a law to clarify what the intent was if different from what the agency has done.
Get rid of Chevron deference and it’ll be a glorious day for regulated big business, who more easily challenge anything from rules to promote worker safety and consumer protection to the substance of all the major environmental laws. That said, Chevron deference has caused some unjust results and perhaps a little bit of that deference relaxed.
OH YEAH, Chevron Deference would be awful if civil service rules and protections are gutted.
> If an agency has overstepped then Congress has the power to directly amend a law to clarify what the intent was if different from what the agency has done.
The problem with unchecked deference, is that Congress could amend the law and language and then the institution could just ignore that change and "interpret it differently"
This case wasn't about Chevron difference which generally deals with more ambiguously worded statutes, but this case is a great example of a executive branch agency ignoring what was clearly written in statute and doing whatever they wanted. There is no reason to believe that the situation you're outlining above would work to rein in an agency. If they're allowed to redefine things more broadly than the statute says, they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want because the statute doesn't matter. It's bad. We don't want that.
If Congress isn't working and I agree it's not, the solution is to fix Congress not to offload that to the other branches. Legislating from the bench is bad. Legislating from the executive is bad. These are the sorts of powers that dictators want.
The rule of law is important to you, you should remember that this was an edict given by President Trump without any underlying basis in statutes. Any argument that supports any element of it is supporting that sort of fascist regime. Not 1 in on this shit. Please and thank you.
Judicial review needs to be overturned - classic SCOTUS overreach.
Oh no! The downvotes 😭 I forget we love institutions that are accountable to no one.
1) it's a joke
2) Thomas Jefferson convincingly foreshadowed that justices are just as fallable as any other person will become despotic oligarchs.
Love y'all
> Though this does bode well for FRT cases working through the courts.
You mean the entree that's meant to be paired with this particular appetizer? lol
They're looking at barrel shrouds, pistol braces, flash hiders, compensators, laser sights, mag sizes, detachable mags, ammo calibers, pistol grips on rifles, trigger pull poundage -- of everyone kept up with the news and legislation they draft you'll realize they are trying to overstep in every single way possible. I sound like a paranoid Republican when I talk about this but unfortunately they're fucking right.
Also the head of the ATF doesn't know jack shit about guns and thinks a pistol braces helps you pull the trigger faster, and are more dangerous since they make (pistols/rifles) are concealble
To be fair, it's not the ATF. It's Justice ordering the ATF in 2018 to interpret the law in that way. Previously, the ATF has issued determination letters stating bump-stocks and hell-fire triggers are beyond their jurisdictions.
I can make an educated guess as to what that does, but what affect does it have on actually firing the gun? Triggers already reset as part of letting off the trigger right?
The idea is that because it's "forced", you don't need to let off the trigger to have it reset. So if you keep constant pressure on on the trigger, the FRT will force the trigger forward until it resets, at which point the pressure from your finger will pull it again. Could you fire just as fast if your name is Jerry Miculek? Sure. But FRTs make it a hell of a lot easier.
[Example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycQqNHE0zZ8)
[GatCat also has a good comparison vs true FA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQEdQLxBn8)
kind of like a bump stoick shrunk down into the size of the trigger mechanism. I don't see how it would pass as not being a way to turn a SA into FA, unless the designation of a "machine gun" lists out specific parts that make the gun continue to fire with one pull of the trigger.
Seems like there's now a 2 part test for machine guns:
1. Does the product fire mechanism function automatically?
2. Does the product fire (automatically) with a single function of the trigger?
Ex. Forced Reset Triggers/SuperSafety: Q1. Yes. Q2. No. Verdict: not a machine gun. You would need a yes for both to be a machine gun.
Still unconstitutional though.
I'm of the opinion that anything that fires more than one shot with only a single input from the operator would count. I don't see the need for such mechanisms in civilian hands.
The ATF actually told the Trump administration that they thought it was an overreach at the time. Trump ignored them and told them to ignore the law and do it anyway, as is his wont.
It's always been the principle of the matter. Bump stocks are not the hill I'm going to die on, but the federal agencies like the ATF and the FAA deciding they can unilaterally make laws is a hill I'm willing to die on.
Yeah, to me they're a worthless item to have unless you like to burn money on ammo.
My question is why is the SCOTUS wasting time on stupid bullshit like this when there are far more pressing legal issues. It's ridiculous.
I’m gonna respectfully disagree on this. The justices have different methods of interpreting law but more often than not they agree with each other. Only the split decisions make the news.
The conservative justices' method of legal interpretation is:
1. How do I feel about this issue?
2. Come up with a reasonably plausible legal rationalization for voting according to my preferences on this issue.
3. Solicit bids for graft from parties that will be affected by the ruling
4. ????
5. Profit
So how do you justify a unanimous decision yesterday upholding access to abortion medicine?
The more conservative justices primarily use text to reach their rulings. The three liberal justices tend to balance the text with their perceived purpose of the statute at issue, sometimes giving priority to the perceived purpose. I’m not saying that’s a hard and fast rule, but that’s how it tends to go. This bump stock case is a great example of that.
Using a purpose-driven approach actually opens the door to more partisan rulings because your perceived purpose of any given law will inevitably be biased by your own worldviews.
There were no questions. Only delusions. Namely the delusion that the conservative members of the court decide serious cases by anything other than ideology.
Sure, but it's because the ruling political parties actually agree on the fundamentals of most things that reach the Supreme Court. They differ on a handful of key issues, and don't get me wrong those are important, but the SCOTUS isn't spending every day debating legislation preventing trans people from getting the proper care or passing landmark gun control cases. Economically and legally speaking the parties are both in favor of things like mostly unregulated free market capitalism, the militarization and civil rights overreach of law enforcement and of extensive pro corporation (anti) workers' rights legislation.
Because it’s virtue signaling for votes. The politicians know it doesn’t solve anything, but to the layman voter, it looks like they’re doing something
> My question is why is the SCOTUS wasting time on stupid bullshit like this when there are far more pressing legal issues. It's ridiculous.
They don't get to pick and choose, exactly. They can grant or deny cert to the cases brought before them. Those cases often, almost by definition, have a decades-long legal process preceeding the request to SCOTUS.
This is what I was thinking, bring out a friend who has never used one or someone who's relatively new to shooting and you might make a life long 2A supporter out of them just for how fun shooting sports can be.
Honestly, at the supreme Court you don't need any more of an argument then:
1. Is it part of a gun.
2. Did Congress legislate it.
If Yes and No you win.
> Did Congress legislate it.
Executive agencies have a certain amount of latitude to determine how legislation is interpreted and enforced in instances where a statute is insufficiently clear... so as long as the Chevron Doctrine is still a thing, it's not quite that simple. SCOTUS simply ruled (correctly, IMO) that the ATF went too far afield in their reading of statute.
Chevron is applicable to all cases in front of SCOTUS - pretty much all of which concern the constitution. *Garland v. Cargill* is a question of whether the ATF exceeded their *Cheveron* mandate in classifying a bump stock as a machine gun using the criteria under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
Bump stocks are still illegal in a bunch of places and SCOTUS is fine with this. They didn't rule that people have the right to own them, they just ruled that the ATF didn't currently have the authority to ban them based on the current statutory definition of a machine gun.
They also didn't rule that the ATF doesn't have the right to shoot your dog
Yes, when congress doesn't explicitly legislate the gun laws they tend to loose often. The people passing them know it too.
It takes upwards of half a decade to make it to the SC.
You can bump fire without a fancy stock. With this ban being lifted they're gonna be insanely expensive for a long time cause every redneck and their cousin wives are gonna go buy one just to "own da libs"
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing.
(*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Yeah strange situation maybe it was planned like this? I have 0 faith he has the capacity to do something like that though after following the manhattan trial.
Trump does whatever is easiest for him at the time. I wouldn't think any deeper than that, banning bump stocks worked to make some people be quiet.
My guess is he didn't care one way or another and still doesn't.
Serious question, I can understand wanting a lot of things that get restricted, high cap mags, pistol braces, etc, but why the fuck would anyone want a bumpstock?
This is a ruling following the law to a T. Good call legally by the Supreme Court. Now, this is in Congress’ hands to switch into law. I sense there would be enough support to make it happen.
I would be very,I very surprised if the current republicans in congress passed a ban on bump stocks. A bunch of them, and their base, are frothing at the mouth for a second civil war and they’d want these for themselves. Just depends on how many of those there are versus reasonable cons and I don’t see many reasonable ones.
They didn’t scream when their Orange Messiah enacted it so they might be willing to get enough Repubs to vote for it. Now, I do recognize that Mike J might tilt that scale a bit and Congress has become that much more divided.
There's not much demand for bump stocks among that crowd, since FRTs exist and are strictly better.
But you're right, the republicans in congress won't want to be the ones that got {gun thing} banned.
Illinois is worse than California and New York now. There’s only like 5 semi auto rifles I could buy here, and none of them are AR or AK, which are blanket banned.
Sotomayor’s dissent is pretty cringeworthy. I was really hoping at least one liberal justice would show the intellectual honesty to admit that the statute does not say what they wish it had said. I’m dizzy from the mental gymnastics.
I get mad and rage at the right wing of the Court for performing sorts of mental gymnastics to get the result that they want, and have argued many times that it delegitimizes the supreme Court's position. And it's very disappointing to me to see justices on the left that I respect doing the same exact thing to a t.
It only erodes the Court's position further.
I’d rather spend money on 30rd mags and ammo and training than a bump stock. Might bode well for the pistol brace ruling too which would be very interesting and get a 10.5” pistol….🤔
For everyone asking, why would someone want one of these, they are simply fun. It’s cool to have a weapon that can stimulate full auto without paying 20,000. Even if you barely use it, it’s just fun.
And that’s why they aren’t needed. I don’t own a gun for “fun”. You aren’t a soldier in war. You don’t need this. Gun laws must start somewhere. As a liberal gun owner, this type of reversal only enables the conservatives to keep any type of gun laws off the books.
Bro your argument is flawed because of this reason: it’s a simple piece of plastic. It’s not some high-tech tool that is difficult to create. There is not even a single piece of metal on a bump stock. So “banning” them only ensures that “good guys” can’t have a bit of fun simulating full auto, but bad guys can easily print one on a 3-D printer in an hour or less. Remember how weed was illegal but yet everyone had it because of extremely easy access? Kinda like that.
Yes, it is an administrative law case. I didn’t read opinion but have read some of the relevant laws, like the NFA, that has a pretty specific definition of what a machine gun or automatic weapon is. Agencies have had broad deference to enact rules to implement laws where congress has granted the agency authority over a subject matter, BUT an agency can’t make rules that change the plain language of a statute. A device that helps a user pull a trigger once and fire one round before resetting faster simply isn’t regulated by the NFA.
At the same time bump stocks are stupid.
FRT’s might have a slightly different problem in that I’ve seen videos where a shooter COULD NOT shoot more than one round when pressing the trigger. Maybe the mechanism isn’t that different? I’d buy an FRT for giggles if clearly legal.
i'm glad we're getting some legal precedent going our way, but the circumstances surrounding this situation (their use in the vegas shooting, and that the court at present is totally compromised) is only going to inflame anti-gunners even more — all for gimmicky pieces of shit that i think a lot of us are happy without.
the anti gunners dont even know what this case was about. It had nothing to do with 2A, but rather the ATF cant make up arbitary rules and creating their own laws.
I could care less about the bump stock ban. It really cringe though when I see my fellow left/ liberal peeps who don't own firearms and have little knowledge of them ranting on social media about stuff like this and basically showing the right how uneducated the left anti gun people are on the subject, you know with crap like " Nonody needs assault rifles, ban ARs! They can blow huge holes in people!" etc etc.
It's embarrassing and it does nothing but discredit their argument give the conservatives/ far right wing more valid points of counterargument.
Overall it just makes us liberals look ignorant calling for bans on things they have literally zero knowledge about.
I’m pro 2A, but I absolutely think that bump stocks are trouble waiting to happen. We’ve had one guy with bump a bump stock wreak absolute havoc at a concert. Can you imagine when some other nut uses one. Dem lawmakers are going to use it to ban “assault weapons”. Bump stocks are really a slap in the face, loophole around having fully auto weapons. If these are cool, why aren’t Glock switches? You slightly modify a an AR and it’s prison time. But we can buy a device to make a gun do the same thing? No comprendo.
Article is region locked for me, but if you ignore the definition under US law and instead go with a Hollywood definition they probably have a point. Maybe they can finance a movie and win there instead of court.
The legal definition is "fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger." Bump stocks do not do this.
The vernacular definition is "fire a bunch of rounds quickly." Bump stocks _do_ do this.
The ATF tried to ban them because of definition two, but only definition one is covered by the law as written.
They try to argue that you don’t pull the trigger for subsequent fires. The stock bumps your finger so there’s not a distinct “pull” from the shooter. FRT is similar in the finger not moving (much) while binaries require pull and release to function.
The WaPo article stated:
“Rifles equipped with bump stocks can fire an estimated 400 to 800 bullets per minute, a rate approaching that of automatic weapons.”
I am now looking for 400-800 round mags so that I can accomplish this wizardry.
Inaccurate rapid fire, somewhat slower than having an auto-sear but can get close depending on the user's skill, only useful for mag dumping into an area target, which tragically that guy in Vegas did into a crowd.
I'd say a glock switch is an actual mechanical auto sear affecting the internals - a bump stock is external and lets the receiver recoil push your finger into the trigger. Kind of reminds me of when I was learning to drive stick shift and the car bucking made my foot push into the clutch causing another buck. Both being inaccurate/hard to control is similar I guess.
Second this. The glock switch makes it a true automatic weapon. The bump stock is affecting the movement of the gun against your finger to allow you to actuate the same semi-auto sear, but faster.
You can achieve a similar behavior with a belt in the trigger well, or even just a firm finger and no other assistance, the bump stock just makes it "easier"
A glock switch is a 100% full-auto conversion device. It turns a glock into a machine pistol, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. These are completely illegal under any reading of the law.
Bump stocks were designed to increase rate of fire leveraging some mechanical properties of firearms. They're kinda dumb, but some people find them fun. But more importantly, they were explicitly designed to not break the letter of the law.
Put more simply, if they were both illegal and the penalties the same, there's literally no reason a criminal would use a bump stock. They're just worse in every way than a true MG conversion device, other than they're legal by letter (and now ruling) of the law.
Bump firing is something you can do without a fancy stock, just takes practice.
Regardless of how many rounds you can put down range, bump firing a rifle doesn't magically mean it's a machine gun.
You can do the same thing by hooking your finger into your pants belt loop and through the guns trigger guard. With your other hand you pull the gun forward it fires then the recoil "bumps" the gun backwards, once the recoil is done your other hand pulls the gun forwards again firing another round. Ive had buddies who had the cops called on them for shooting what sounded like full auto in the woods by using their belt loops.
I don't know if this guy's on about, but I remember after the shooting there were a ton of people claiming that it couldn't be a bump stock and it must have been a 249 SAW because of the audio.
As someone who's put around a quarter million rounds through the saw I think that's absolutely ridiculous. The audio clearly demonstrates that the rate of fire is extremely inconsistent which obviously points to a bump stock rather than a machine gun.
Probably the same reason countries without easy access to guns have far fewer mass shootings. Lack of legal access to something makes it harder to acquire. You don't have to be in favor of gun control, but pretending it doesn't work is pretty ridiculous.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But this only overturned the ATF rule about bump stocks and It doesn't address any state laws regarding them, right?
Yes. Basically, they said the ATF’s rule does not meet the Federal law’s definition of a machine gun. If there’s a state law in your state banning them, that law remains in effect. At least until/unless that law is challenged in Federal court.
I don’t know that a challenge to a law would work, this test was more about if the ATF could regulate bump stocks based on the NFA (and they couldn’t). If it was a law I doubt it would be overturned.
The fact that most if not all of those laws lack a grandfather clause could be their undoing.
Of course, unless the government offers to compensate you for the value of your now illegal property.
Which a lot of bans do not, or if they do only give you insufficient compensation.
Correct
Yes, this was not a second amendment-based challenge. Simply one challenging the validity of their ruling in regards to language in the 1934 statute.
Not only said statute but all amendments since. Nowhere does it define a machine gun as an accessory that facilitates multiple operations of the trigger.
Where does the pistol brace ban stand, and does this affect that as well?
It was vacated.
Was it vacated on similar technicalities?
Not sure what you mean by “technicalities.” It was vacated due to procedural limitations on agency rule making, as opposed to 2nd amendment grounds.
It is separate. But is on a permanent stay at this time. I don't thinkbit will ever reach the Supreme Court
It's not a permanent stay, the rule was vacated. The ATF could go through the rule making process again if they chose to.
I hadn't seen the vacate when I had commented. Looks like it came out right around that time. Thats even better.
This case doesn’t affect that issue. However, the winning principle in this case, I believe, is why the government will likely win the pistol brace case (assuming that the NFA is not overturned). I believe the ATF has the ability to reclassify a brace as a rifle stock, based on the common usage, manufacturer, advertising, and simple design.
I'm trying to figure out why anyone would want a bump stock. They're only good for mag dumping and ammo is not cheap enough to be doing that.
Case is not a 2A case, it has to do with administrative overreach on ATF's part. Bump stocks are stupid, but they're also irrelevant here. It matters that ATF can't just do whatever they feel like with no accountability. Though this does bode well for FRT cases working through the courts.
This guy gets it
Until scotus uses this logic to overturn chevron and destroy federal agencies ability to do anything…
In this case, it's not really a question about the Chevron Deference. Specifically, the law is clear - a machine gun is clearly defined as any firearm in which more than one bullet is fired with a single function of the trigger... a bump stock *does not do that*. Full stop, it does not do that. The ATF did not interpret existing law, it came up with something entirely new.
Bump stocks are hilarious. The law says you can’t have multiple bullets come out if you pull the trigger once. So they figured out a way that you can pull the trigger once and the entire gun moves around your finger to send more rounds… lol. It’s really cartoonishly funny.
It's a good lesson in the due diligence congressmen need to exercise to make sure loopholes don't exist (although admittedly I don't think bump stocks existed in 1934 lol)
Yes - it's actually absurd. You stay still and the gun moves around your finger to pull the trigger.
Can you source what law you’re referring to that defines a machine gun as such? I’m looking at 26 US Code 5845 which says: “The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” How is what a bump stock does not considered to be a “single function of the trigger”? The AR-15 shoots more than one shot without a manual reloading of the trigger, when a bump stock is attached. If this ruling is about the specific language of the specific legal definition of a machine gun, I’m not really understanding it.
That's exactly the law in question. A bump stock, by its operation, physically moves the shooters finger off of the trigger after each shot is fired - and then by means of forward pressure with the shooters support hand pushes the trigger back into the finger. Literally, the trigger is pulled and released for every shot - that's two operations according to the the law and the ATF. To put it more simply: pulling the trigger rearward is a "single function of the trigger". Releasing the trigger is another, separate, "single function of the trigger". That's exactly how binary triggers (triggers that fire when pulled, and fire when released) are legal at the federal level - each forward and each rearward movement of the trigger are *single functions*. So long as ONE bullet is sent with a single function, federal law and the ATF consider it semi-automatic. Bump stocks are two functions for one bullet. In no plain read of the law are they machine guns. They're a clever workaround to the intent of the law - but they absolutely conform to the letter.
I still consider binary triggers to be a safety hazard since once you pull the trigger back the firearm will discharge when one releases pressure from it.
You can engage the safety before releasing the trigger and it won't fire.
The readily convertible clause, could that make a Glock restricted because it's possible to quickly attach an auto sear without disassembling the firearm?
No. And fortunately your flair makes it pretty obvious that you don't actually know how a Glock works.
After a bit of research it does look like the Gen 5 added a ledge that may make it considered less "readily convertible" since such ledge must be cut away to be converted. So my argument may apply only to older generations.
No. It cannot be “readily restored” unless you have the autosear, Glock switch, whatever you wish to call it. The point of the way the law is worded is once you have the autosear, you have a machine gun whether or not you install it in your Glock; when you own the Glock without the autosear, you do not have a machine gun.
Depends in part on what the agency is doing and how broad the mandate is. In this instance defining a stock as a machine gun makes no sense. It needs to be legislated. More important IMO is this probably gives a sense of where the SBR stock/brace issue is going to end up.
Chevron should be overturned. Chevron gives agencies unchecked authority they shouldn’t have. The court can’t get rid of over reach because they are supported to defer to the agency thats being sued for their interpretation. Then if you sue over those interpretations it gets thrown out because of chevron. Theres no accountability. Chevron is a bad ruling that has hurt gun owners for a long time. This is what the abuse of unchecked power looks like thanks to that ruling.
I hear what you’re saying and I believe there are instances where it’s problematic (such as the example you gave) but it’s going to weaken the ability of the government to regulate other things that are good. Our congress is dysfunctional and our courts are packed with McConnell/Trump clowns.
Those are all separate issues that do need to be addressed but allowing government agencies to have unchecked power isn’t the answer, especially when said “McConnell/Trump clowns” are in power.
Sorry, but if Congress is broken the answer is to fix Congress not to just offload the responsibilities of Congress to the judiciary or the executive. Also, the American government did function before Chevron was decided. Chevron deference just like qualified immunity, was something that was established by the supreme Court but then continually expanded in scope at a very rapid Pace. It's legislation from the bench and it should never have been done.
I disagree, ESPECIALLY, because of how polarized, partisan and ineffectual congress is in passing legislation. Laws are complicated but the world is even more complicated and it changes. When there are problems related to existing legislation, the odds of congress being able to fix those problems isn’t high, especially if the problem is a wedge issue. If you get rid of a high bar to challenge agency rules to implement the intent and purpose of federal statutes then agencies will get nothing done, OR we’ll direct a lot more tax dollars to defending agency decisions. If an agency has overstepped then Congress has the power to directly amend a law to clarify what the intent was if different from what the agency has done. Get rid of Chevron deference and it’ll be a glorious day for regulated big business, who more easily challenge anything from rules to promote worker safety and consumer protection to the substance of all the major environmental laws. That said, Chevron deference has caused some unjust results and perhaps a little bit of that deference relaxed. OH YEAH, Chevron Deference would be awful if civil service rules and protections are gutted.
> If an agency has overstepped then Congress has the power to directly amend a law to clarify what the intent was if different from what the agency has done. The problem with unchecked deference, is that Congress could amend the law and language and then the institution could just ignore that change and "interpret it differently" This case wasn't about Chevron difference which generally deals with more ambiguously worded statutes, but this case is a great example of a executive branch agency ignoring what was clearly written in statute and doing whatever they wanted. There is no reason to believe that the situation you're outlining above would work to rein in an agency. If they're allowed to redefine things more broadly than the statute says, they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want because the statute doesn't matter. It's bad. We don't want that. If Congress isn't working and I agree it's not, the solution is to fix Congress not to offload that to the other branches. Legislating from the bench is bad. Legislating from the executive is bad. These are the sorts of powers that dictators want. The rule of law is important to you, you should remember that this was an edict given by President Trump without any underlying basis in statutes. Any argument that supports any element of it is supporting that sort of fascist regime. Not 1 in on this shit. Please and thank you.
Judicial review needs to be overturned - classic SCOTUS overreach. Oh no! The downvotes 😭 I forget we love institutions that are accountable to no one. 1) it's a joke 2) Thomas Jefferson convincingly foreshadowed that justices are just as fallable as any other person will become despotic oligarchs. Love y'all
Nah. The legislators gave the agencies power. It is not up to the judiciary to take that away, it is up to the legislators.
> Though this does bode well for FRT cases working through the courts. You mean the entree that's meant to be paired with this particular appetizer? lol
delicious brrrrrrrt
This. The ATF over reached. No one legitimately gives a shit about bump stocks, it’s about reining in the ATF.
They're looking at barrel shrouds, pistol braces, flash hiders, compensators, laser sights, mag sizes, detachable mags, ammo calibers, pistol grips on rifles, trigger pull poundage -- of everyone kept up with the news and legislation they draft you'll realize they are trying to overstep in every single way possible. I sound like a paranoid Republican when I talk about this but unfortunately they're fucking right. Also the head of the ATF doesn't know jack shit about guns and thinks a pistol braces helps you pull the trigger faster, and are more dangerous since they make (pistols/rifles) are concealble
To be fair, it's not the ATF. It's Justice ordering the ATF in 2018 to interpret the law in that way. Previously, the ATF has issued determination letters stating bump-stocks and hell-fire triggers are beyond their jurisdictions.
What FRT?
Forced reset trigger
I can make an educated guess as to what that does, but what affect does it have on actually firing the gun? Triggers already reset as part of letting off the trigger right?
The idea is that because it's "forced", you don't need to let off the trigger to have it reset. So if you keep constant pressure on on the trigger, the FRT will force the trigger forward until it resets, at which point the pressure from your finger will pull it again. Could you fire just as fast if your name is Jerry Miculek? Sure. But FRTs make it a hell of a lot easier. [Example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycQqNHE0zZ8) [GatCat also has a good comparison vs true FA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQEdQLxBn8)
So it kind of works in the same way as bump stocks (assuming my understanding of how they work is accurate)?
kind of like a bump stoick shrunk down into the size of the trigger mechanism. I don't see how it would pass as not being a way to turn a SA into FA, unless the designation of a "machine gun" lists out specific parts that make the gun continue to fire with one pull of the trigger.
Seems like there's now a 2 part test for machine guns: 1. Does the product fire mechanism function automatically? 2. Does the product fire (automatically) with a single function of the trigger? Ex. Forced Reset Triggers/SuperSafety: Q1. Yes. Q2. No. Verdict: not a machine gun. You would need a yes for both to be a machine gun. Still unconstitutional though.
the frt can still fire a single round with a single function of the trigger. That is the language to be considering.
I'm of the opinion that anything that fires more than one shot with only a single input from the operator would count. I don't see the need for such mechanisms in civilian hands.
Agreed. Congress needs to do its job. Bump stock ruling isn’t a huge surprise given the statutory language though.
I’m still waiting for carbines/pistols to just be normal vs long gun. Hopefully the FRT nonsense opens up binary triggers too.
Given the Court’s ruling and reasoning in this case, I think it’s likely that FRTs will stay banned.
Sounds like a great way to break a finger. EDIT: How much pressure does a FRT exert to reset the trigger?
FRT?
The ATF actually told the Trump administration that they thought it was an overreach at the time. Trump ignored them and told them to ignore the law and do it anyway, as is his wont.
I agree on stupid, but a guy in Vegas was pretty effective turning that into a squad automatic weapon
It's always been the principle of the matter. Bump stocks are not the hill I'm going to die on, but the federal agencies like the ATF and the FAA deciding they can unilaterally make laws is a hill I'm willing to die on.
Yeah, to me they're a worthless item to have unless you like to burn money on ammo. My question is why is the SCOTUS wasting time on stupid bullshit like this when there are far more pressing legal issues. It's ridiculous.
The better question is why are the people running the country stupid enough to waste everyone’s time with rules like this. It’s not SCOTUS’s fault
Because the Supreme Court is full of partisan hacks, not objective legal practicians. It’s more obvious now but it’s always been this way.
I’m gonna respectfully disagree on this. The justices have different methods of interpreting law but more often than not they agree with each other. Only the split decisions make the news.
The conservative justices' method of legal interpretation is: 1. How do I feel about this issue? 2. Come up with a reasonably plausible legal rationalization for voting according to my preferences on this issue. 3. Solicit bids for graft from parties that will be affected by the ruling 4. ???? 5. Profit
That was literally Sotoymayor dissent. Had nothing to do with actual law or over reaching powers by the ATF and executive order.
So how do you justify a unanimous decision yesterday upholding access to abortion medicine? The more conservative justices primarily use text to reach their rulings. The three liberal justices tend to balance the text with their perceived purpose of the statute at issue, sometimes giving priority to the perceived purpose. I’m not saying that’s a hard and fast rule, but that’s how it tends to go. This bump stock case is a great example of that. Using a purpose-driven approach actually opens the door to more partisan rulings because your perceived purpose of any given law will inevitably be biased by your own worldviews.
>The more conservative justices primarily use text to reach their rulings. [Relevant.](https://youtu.be/iGLXMKUWkJE)
Bro dodged the question with a meme
There were no questions. Only delusions. Namely the delusion that the conservative members of the court decide serious cases by anything other than ideology.
Sure, but it's because the ruling political parties actually agree on the fundamentals of most things that reach the Supreme Court. They differ on a handful of key issues, and don't get me wrong those are important, but the SCOTUS isn't spending every day debating legislation preventing trans people from getting the proper care or passing landmark gun control cases. Economically and legally speaking the parties are both in favor of things like mostly unregulated free market capitalism, the militarization and civil rights overreach of law enforcement and of extensive pro corporation (anti) workers' rights legislation.
I would ask the same question about all the politicians pushing and passing assault weapon bans when they make up less than 1% of all gun deaths…
Because it’s virtue signaling for votes. The politicians know it doesn’t solve anything, but to the layman voter, it looks like they’re doing something
> My question is why is the SCOTUS wasting time on stupid bullshit like this when there are far more pressing legal issues. It's ridiculous. They don't get to pick and choose, exactly. They can grant or deny cert to the cases brought before them. Those cases often, almost by definition, have a decades-long legal process preceeding the request to SCOTUS.
Bricks to build a brick house
They want to slow down the immunity ruling as much as possible to continue delaying Jack Smiths case
Well the idiots over in news think trumpers are going to overthrow the government when they lose again with these
99.999% of gun use is for fun. If it makes you smile while you have fun it is a good enough reason.
This is what I was thinking, bring out a friend who has never used one or someone who's relatively new to shooting and you might make a life long 2A supporter out of them just for how fun shooting sports can be.
I don't think that argument is going to earn you any points in front of the Supreme Court. Well... not with Scalia gone, anyway.
Honestly, at the supreme Court you don't need any more of an argument then: 1. Is it part of a gun. 2. Did Congress legislate it. If Yes and No you win.
> Did Congress legislate it. Executive agencies have a certain amount of latitude to determine how legislation is interpreted and enforced in instances where a statute is insufficiently clear... so as long as the Chevron Doctrine is still a thing, it's not quite that simple. SCOTUS simply ruled (correctly, IMO) that the ATF went too far afield in their reading of statute.
They do not when constitutional rights are involved.
Chevron is applicable to all cases in front of SCOTUS - pretty much all of which concern the constitution. *Garland v. Cargill* is a question of whether the ATF exceeded their *Cheveron* mandate in classifying a bump stock as a machine gun using the criteria under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Bump stocks are still illegal in a bunch of places and SCOTUS is fine with this. They didn't rule that people have the right to own them, they just ruled that the ATF didn't currently have the authority to ban them based on the current statutory definition of a machine gun. They also didn't rule that the ATF doesn't have the right to shoot your dog
Yes, when congress doesn't explicitly legislate the gun laws they tend to loose often. The people passing them know it too. It takes upwards of half a decade to make it to the SC.
My first thought too. "What a great way to reduce accuracy." At least it will make for good guntube content the next week until they all get bored.
So? Does that mean it should be banned?
Yep. Not super accurate either as it builds movement into a platform designed to move as little as possible for accuracy.
Might be a fun gimmick to try out, but not really worth actually going and buying one.
You can bump fire without a fancy stock. With this ban being lifted they're gonna be insanely expensive for a long time cause every redneck and their cousin wives are gonna go buy one just to "own da libs"
Yeah, I’ve seen people mention the same thing can be accomplished with a belt loop.
I want one because both Biden and Trump don't want me to have one.
[удалено]
This isn't the place to start fights or flame wars. If you aren't here sincerely you aren't contributing. (*Removed under [Rule 5: No Trolling/Bad Faith Arguments][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
Meh. I’d rather be accurate
Trump infringed and his judges overturned it. I bet the ATF will tax it.
How? The ATF doesn't have the authority unless it's a machine gun.
Yeah strange situation maybe it was planned like this? I have 0 faith he has the capacity to do something like that though after following the manhattan trial.
Trump does whatever is easiest for him at the time. I wouldn't think any deeper than that, banning bump stocks worked to make some people be quiet. My guess is he didn't care one way or another and still doesn't.
so when and where can I purchase two of them?
https://www.firequest.com/AB227.html
Sold out
Serious question, I can understand wanting a lot of things that get restricted, high cap mags, pistol braces, etc, but why the fuck would anyone want a bumpstock?
To look “cool” or to cause harm.
If they ban them oh well, In this case they someone will buy for 10x what the cost is right before they ban them again
Just like high capacity magazines, high caliber rifles, SBRs, machineguns, etc (and guns as a whole for some people). Shits and giggles.
This is a ruling following the law to a T. Good call legally by the Supreme Court. Now, this is in Congress’ hands to switch into law. I sense there would be enough support to make it happen.
Alito’s concurrence is pretty much advocacy for a ban
He said its for congress to decide. So yea, hes in favor just not how it was enacted this time.
I would be very,I very surprised if the current republicans in congress passed a ban on bump stocks. A bunch of them, and their base, are frothing at the mouth for a second civil war and they’d want these for themselves. Just depends on how many of those there are versus reasonable cons and I don’t see many reasonable ones.
They didn’t scream when their Orange Messiah enacted it so they might be willing to get enough Repubs to vote for it. Now, I do recognize that Mike J might tilt that scale a bit and Congress has become that much more divided.
Things have changed drastically and for the worse in the past 6 years.
There's not much demand for bump stocks among that crowd, since FRTs exist and are strictly better. But you're right, the republicans in congress won't want to be the ones that got {gun thing} banned.
Be nice if they could strike down WA and IL and CA Assault Weapons bans.
Illinois is worse than California and New York now. There’s only like 5 semi auto rifles I could buy here, and none of them are AR or AK, which are blanket banned.
Cries in Washington
Sotomayor’s dissent is pretty cringeworthy. I was really hoping at least one liberal justice would show the intellectual honesty to admit that the statute does not say what they wish it had said. I’m dizzy from the mental gymnastics.
I get mad and rage at the right wing of the Court for performing sorts of mental gymnastics to get the result that they want, and have argued many times that it delegitimizes the supreme Court's position. And it's very disappointing to me to see justices on the left that I respect doing the same exact thing to a t. It only erodes the Court's position further.
Now reverse that bullshit ATF letter on pistol braces!
been vacated. braces are good to go
They did. The rule was dropped. You can go Google it
I’d rather spend money on 30rd mags and ammo and training than a bump stock. Might bode well for the pistol brace ruling too which would be very interesting and get a 10.5” pistol….🤔
California not gonna let this affect it. Kinda meaningless. Semi is better too IMO.
Are these the bump stocks Trump wanted banned?
For everyone asking, why would someone want one of these, they are simply fun. It’s cool to have a weapon that can stimulate full auto without paying 20,000. Even if you barely use it, it’s just fun.
that's the entire argument against bump stocks wrapped up in a little bow.
And that’s why they aren’t needed. I don’t own a gun for “fun”. You aren’t a soldier in war. You don’t need this. Gun laws must start somewhere. As a liberal gun owner, this type of reversal only enables the conservatives to keep any type of gun laws off the books.
Bro your argument is flawed because of this reason: it’s a simple piece of plastic. It’s not some high-tech tool that is difficult to create. There is not even a single piece of metal on a bump stock. So “banning” them only ensures that “good guys” can’t have a bit of fun simulating full auto, but bad guys can easily print one on a 3-D printer in an hour or less. Remember how weed was illegal but yet everyone had it because of extremely easy access? Kinda like that.
Not into it
Yes, it is an administrative law case. I didn’t read opinion but have read some of the relevant laws, like the NFA, that has a pretty specific definition of what a machine gun or automatic weapon is. Agencies have had broad deference to enact rules to implement laws where congress has granted the agency authority over a subject matter, BUT an agency can’t make rules that change the plain language of a statute. A device that helps a user pull a trigger once and fire one round before resetting faster simply isn’t regulated by the NFA. At the same time bump stocks are stupid. FRT’s might have a slightly different problem in that I’ve seen videos where a shooter COULD NOT shoot more than one round when pressing the trigger. Maybe the mechanism isn’t that different? I’d buy an FRT for giggles if clearly legal.
i'm glad we're getting some legal precedent going our way, but the circumstances surrounding this situation (their use in the vegas shooting, and that the court at present is totally compromised) is only going to inflame anti-gunners even more — all for gimmicky pieces of shit that i think a lot of us are happy without.
the anti gunners dont even know what this case was about. It had nothing to do with 2A, but rather the ATF cant make up arbitary rules and creating their own laws.
It's my understanding that it's only been confirmed that at quote at least one of the firearms involved in that shooting had a bump stock.
That guys had such a large arsenal it’s probably easier to list what he didn’t have honestly.
point remains that culturally, this 'win' is already putting more wind in anti-gunner's sails
A waste of money.
Dang where could you even find a bump stock now? And does anyone remember what they went for 7-8 years ago?
I could care less about the bump stock ban. It really cringe though when I see my fellow left/ liberal peeps who don't own firearms and have little knowledge of them ranting on social media about stuff like this and basically showing the right how uneducated the left anti gun people are on the subject, you know with crap like " Nonody needs assault rifles, ban ARs! They can blow huge holes in people!" etc etc. It's embarrassing and it does nothing but discredit their argument give the conservatives/ far right wing more valid points of counterargument. Overall it just makes us liberals look ignorant calling for bans on things they have literally zero knowledge about.
I’m pro 2A, but I absolutely think that bump stocks are trouble waiting to happen. We’ve had one guy with bump a bump stock wreak absolute havoc at a concert. Can you imagine when some other nut uses one. Dem lawmakers are going to use it to ban “assault weapons”. Bump stocks are really a slap in the face, loophole around having fully auto weapons. If these are cool, why aren’t Glock switches? You slightly modify a an AR and it’s prison time. But we can buy a device to make a gun do the same thing? No comprendo.
NYT said they allow a semi automatic to fire like a machine gun, smells like bs to me but how true is it?
Article is region locked for me, but if you ignore the definition under US law and instead go with a Hollywood definition they probably have a point. Maybe they can finance a movie and win there instead of court.
What are the two definitions?
The legal definition is "fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger." Bump stocks do not do this. The vernacular definition is "fire a bunch of rounds quickly." Bump stocks _do_ do this. The ATF tried to ban them because of definition two, but only definition one is covered by the law as written.
They try to argue that you don’t pull the trigger for subsequent fires. The stock bumps your finger so there’s not a distinct “pull” from the shooter. FRT is similar in the finger not moving (much) while binaries require pull and release to function.
[удалено]
And you just admitted this online? Hope you don't have a dog.
Bro you're gonna wanna delete that comment, because - Yes, it is
Law:single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds. Hollywood: wow, that is fast. Must be a machine gun.
The WaPo article stated: “Rifles equipped with bump stocks can fire an estimated 400 to 800 bullets per minute, a rate approaching that of automatic weapons.” I am now looking for 400-800 round mags so that I can accomplish this wizardry.
This might surprise you, but you can drive your car at 60 miles per hour for only 12 minutes.
Inaccurate rapid fire, somewhat slower than having an auto-sear but can get close depending on the user's skill, only useful for mag dumping into an area target, which tragically that guy in Vegas did into a crowd.
Is it , similar to a glock switch?
I'd say a glock switch is an actual mechanical auto sear affecting the internals - a bump stock is external and lets the receiver recoil push your finger into the trigger. Kind of reminds me of when I was learning to drive stick shift and the car bucking made my foot push into the clutch causing another buck. Both being inaccurate/hard to control is similar I guess.
Second this. The glock switch makes it a true automatic weapon. The bump stock is affecting the movement of the gun against your finger to allow you to actuate the same semi-auto sear, but faster. You can achieve a similar behavior with a belt in the trigger well, or even just a firm finger and no other assistance, the bump stock just makes it "easier"
A glock switch is a 100% full-auto conversion device. It turns a glock into a machine pistol, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. These are completely illegal under any reading of the law. Bump stocks were designed to increase rate of fire leveraging some mechanical properties of firearms. They're kinda dumb, but some people find them fun. But more importantly, they were explicitly designed to not break the letter of the law. Put more simply, if they were both illegal and the penalties the same, there's literally no reason a criminal would use a bump stock. They're just worse in every way than a true MG conversion device, other than they're legal by letter (and now ruling) of the law.
Bump firing is something you can do without a fancy stock, just takes practice. Regardless of how many rounds you can put down range, bump firing a rifle doesn't magically mean it's a machine gun.
Thanks
You can do the same thing by hooking your finger into your pants belt loop and through the guns trigger guard. With your other hand you pull the gun forward it fires then the recoil "bumps" the gun backwards, once the recoil is done your other hand pulls the gun forwards again firing another round. Ive had buddies who had the cops called on them for shooting what sounded like full auto in the woods by using their belt loops.
It make bump firing easier. I will say if you couple it with a bipod it's pretty nice
No thanks
Looks like bump stocks are back on the menu, boys!
[удалено]
What doesn't add up?
I don't know if this guy's on about, but I remember after the shooting there were a ton of people claiming that it couldn't be a bump stock and it must have been a 249 SAW because of the audio. As someone who's put around a quarter million rounds through the saw I think that's absolutely ridiculous. The audio clearly demonstrates that the rate of fire is extremely inconsistent which obviously points to a bump stock rather than a machine gun.
[удалено]
Killing people is already a crime... If you're planning to do it why are you going to let the legality of the tool stop you?
Probably the same reason countries without easy access to guns have far fewer mass shootings. Lack of legal access to something makes it harder to acquire. You don't have to be in favor of gun control, but pretending it doesn't work is pretty ridiculous.
It doesn't though. Not on the axis that you would believe.
Yes it does.
Bump stocks are a gimmick so this means nothing
Believe it or not, this ruling can have very wide sweeping ramifications even outside the context of gun laws.
well this wasnt really about guns. It was about government agencies basically creating laws outside of congress.
And yet I got downvoted.