• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas said a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.

    While I have not followed this case or read this ruling, bolded section would appear to be true (maybe, I can think of reasons that it could be seen differently). However, that doesn’t mean that bump stocks are legal. It just means that the case before the court was to decide whether a bump stock turned a semiauto into a “machine gun.”

    It would be elementary to make bump stocks illegal, because bump stocks are not firearms. Making bump stocks illegal wouldn’t cross the Second Amendment.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It would be elementary to make bump stocks illegal, because bump stocks are not firearms. Making bump stocks illegal wouldn’t cross the Second Amendment.

      Correct. The issue was that the ATF tried to do an end-run around the legal process. Somebody in there did not watch that Schoolhouse Rock song about how bills become law… All that has to happen (federally, anyway) is that Congress must pass a law prohibiting them and the president has to sign it. But that’s not what happened. The ATF – under Trump’s direction, mind you – tried unilaterally to redefine an item that is not a firearm as a regulated firearm. What is and is not a firearm (and what is and is not a “machine gun” also) is already codified into law.

      You can argue for or against unelected agencies having the ability to create new regulations with the force of law behind them without involving the usual system of checks-and-balances, but specifically in the case of the ATF they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not able to use such a privilege in good faith. They would be (and are) exceedingly likely to use it as a cudgel to play these “legal yesterday, felony today” types of games with people so give themselves excuses to kick in doors and shoot people’s dogs.

      Various state laws already prohibit bump stocks. My state is one of them.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve followed it and the first paragraph is spot on. But I’d argue something doesn’t have to be a firearm to be protected, see Caetano v Massachusetts. It probably would also protect other items adjacent or necessary for the intended purposes of the amendment; like some types of ammo, parts, or accessories. If bumpstocks fall into that is another question though. Reading the tea leaves it doesn’t seem like it.

      But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” -pg 19

    • ShadowRam@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.

      So if I make a device that spins and presses the trigger for me, then it’s not illegal, got it.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Bump stocks allow for the trigger to be activated multiple times by a mechanjcal device with a single (human) pull of the trigger. The person is not pulling the trigger multiple times, even though the trigger is being moved multiple times.

      I know the whole thing is pedantic legalese, but it is like saying mechanically activating a trigger rapidly with a motor activated with a single button press would be legal.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          In that scenario the button is the trigger. Trigger is being used not to describe a curved piece of metal you put your finger on but the input device. The oral arguments had a lot around that issue.

          See the reply below

            • FireTower@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              You’re correct went back and reread it:

              On weapons with these standard trigger mechanisms, the phrase “function of the trigger” means the physical trigger movement required to shoot the firearm. Pg. 7

              Although it sounds like there maybe be edge cases where specially designed firearms are treated differently if they lack a traditional mechanism.