Lib SCOTUS Justices Clueless About Bump Stocks

[gun sane]

What is a trigger function?  That's the big rhubarb going on at the Supreme Court over the bump stock rule.  Good thing it doesn't depend on which gender uses the device more effectively.  Then they would have to figure out what a man or woman is.

Anti-Bump Stock Justices Prove They Don't Know How Guns Work (1ft.io)

[LangdoniousRex]

That's not a requirement of their job. Their job is to interpret law as it is written. 

[btq96r]

I don't know why we expect judges to be familiar with every nuance in cases brought before them....especially in general courts like SCOTUS is.  The lawyers did a good job of respectfully correcting them with facts.  Most gun rights supporters don't understand bump stocks as a niche item given how ready they are to let the ban stand with little more than a shrug (looking at you, Trump).

I'd also wager that 800 rds per second was a flub of 800 rds per minute, which is more reasonable if you extrapolate the bump stock fire rate out to 60 seconds minus any mag changes (since capacity is variable).  Still realistically wrong, but there's no denying you can increase the rate of fire significantly beyond intended use of design like happened in the Las Vegas shooting...which is the big risk/threat seen.

[peejman]

Isn't the whole point of the hearing to explain the situation to the justices? The manner of that explanation is the lawyer's job.  As stated, the justices then weigh the explanation against the existing law and give an interpretation. 

[gun sane]

I've always believed that an automatic rifle was more about the internals than externals.  I don't own a bump stock--nor ever will--but I'll support those who see them as an edge in a firefight.

Edited February 29 by gun sane

[willki]

6 hours ago, gun sane said:

What is a trigger function?  That's the big rhubarb going on at the Supreme Court over the bump stock rule.  Good thing it doesn't depend on which gender uses the device more effectively.  Then they would have to figure out what a man or woman is.

Anti-Bump Stock Justices Prove They Don't Know How Guns Work (1ft.io)

How could we expect the Justices to know even the basics about how a firearm works when the head of the ATF testified in front of congress that he doesn't know either?

The Justices, as many have stated, are experts on the law.  The people that are SUPPOSED to be subject matter experts are those working at agencies such as ATF, EPA, ... but as we have seen over and over again, none of those folks are experts in their fields either.  They are only experts in knowing what the uni-party told them to do.

[Grayfox54]

4 hours ago, peejman said:

Isn't the whole point of the hearing to explain the situation to the justices? The manner of that explanation is the lawyer's job.  As stated, the justices then weigh the explanation against the existing law and give an interpretation. 

You can't teach those who are unwilling to learn. 

[HKfanTN]

It is not rocket science.  The NFA definition is: "Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “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."  So if a firearm requires more than a single function of the trigger, it is not a machine gun. In the bump stock ruling they argued the firearm moved and the trigger did not which is irrelevant.  That is nothing more than a matter of perspective whether the trigger is being made to function by moving a finger or the firearm is moving while the trigger and finger are fixed. It is still the function of the trigger moving back and forth that makes the weapon fire.  Rate of fire  has absolutely nothing to do with it or every firearm Jerry Miculek operated could be deemed a machine gun. 

The danger in the bump stock ruling is indeed the slippery slope which is real.  Look at their action on braces. 

[LangdoniousRex]

11 minutes ago, HKfanTN said:

The danger in the bump stock ruling is indeed the slippery slope which is real.  Look at their action on braces. 

The ruling will only apply to bump stocks specifically. Braces, FRTs, etchings of lightning links in credit card sized pieces of metal, those are all different battles in the same war. The AFT won't stop until they are executive ordered out of existence so we all better keep kevlar on our dogs until that happens.

[Chucktshoes]

57 minutes ago, HKfanTN said:

It is not rocket science.  The NFA definition is: "Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “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."  So if a firearm requires more than a single function of the trigger, it is not a machine gun. In the bump stock ruling they argued the firearm moved and the trigger did not which is irrelevant.  That is nothing more than a matter of perspective whether the trigger is being made to function by moving a finger or the firearm is moving while the trigger and finger are fixed. It is still the function of the trigger moving back and forth that makes the weapon fire.  Rate of fire  has absolutely nothing to do with it or every firearm Jerry Miculek operated could be deemed a machine gun. 

The danger in the bump stock ruling is indeed the slippery slope which is real.  Look at their action on braces. 

Exactly. The fight has never been about the bumpstocks themselves. It was and is about the actions taken by the ATF (as instructed by the President at that time) in re-interpreting the law to fit a political end.
 

It isn’t what they did, but how they did it. 

The only reason the mechanism by which the bumpstock functions matters is that it isn’t in line with the definitions in the text of the statute. It’s a much bigger deal than just these particular accessories. This case combined with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 will hopefully be death of the imperial executive through Chevron Deference. 

The words in the statute mean specific things and the executive agencies have to be told that they can’t just decide that they mean whatever they want just because they feel like it. 

Edited March 1 by Chucktshoes

[Garufa]

I wonder how they got banned in the first place.  

Edited March 1 by Garufa

[hipower]

5 hours ago, gun sane said:

I've always believed that an automatic rifle was more about the internals than externals.  I don't own a bump stock--nor ever will--but I'll support those who see them as an edge in a firefight.

Never saw nor felt the need for me to own one. Did have the opportunity to fire one. Wasn't really impressed with it...but after have been around real sub-guns at shows; I thought myself a bit better informed than most touting the greatness of the bump-stock.

[krunchnik]

Working at the old Range USA I had the task of keeping 4 different full auto firearms working-

I found out that there is lots of mechanical differences in the actions and mechanics-

The fastest rate of fire we had was a Glock with a buzz switch owned by an ex state trooper-

We had an HK MP5 that when working was kind of a hoot-

None of these weapons could even be compared to anything with a bump stock-

It's completely in the action and if these so called experts would actually do their home work it would be wonderful-

SCOTUS justices mostly are college educated about paper work and probably cant figure out how a pair of scissors work-so everything has to be explicitly explained-

[Wheelgunner]

11 hours ago, LangdoniousRex said:

That's not a requirement of their job. Their job is to interpret law as it is written. 

This.  And fortunately, we just might have a majority of them who are willing to do that job.  The Bruen decision begs the question - at the time of the founding, was any whole class of guns widely outlawed because you could fire them quickly?

[Chucktshoes]

I just listed to the entire oral arguments. 
 

I don’t think we win this one. The lawyer arguing for the bumpstocks got his ass kicked.