• GroundedGator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).

    The text at issue is

    SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out “any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” and inserting in lieu thereof “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,”

    IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.

    Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.

    26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

    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

    Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn’t even have a trigger?

    I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.

    • BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Bump stock still requires single function of the trigger. Might want to research how it actually works.

      • homura1650@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        The entire logic of the Court’s opinion rests on the fact that bump stocks still use a seperate trigger action per shot. They just cause the trigger to automatically trigger against a stationary finger instead of the shooter needing to manually actuate their trigger finger.

        Is this an obtusely litteral reading of a law that was clearly intended to be more broadly interpreted? Probably. But it is a reading with a majority support on the court, so we are stuck with it until congress amends the law.

      • GroundedGator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Isn’t it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Correct. I mean, the thing was specifically designed to get high fire rates while technically keeping guns semi auto. That’s why legislation is an arms race. You ban certain things, gun manufacturers design around it.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.