Supreme Court rejects bump stock ban

[5-Points 3,461]

While we're at it, we better ban belt loops too.

 

 

[Hawkeye21 2,390]

13 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I thought owning machine guns was illegal. Aren’t bump stocks basically allowing folks to own machine guns? Whats the difference? 

It is still a semi-auto gun.

[The Real timschochet 6,582]

Thanks for the responses to my questions. I appreciate and respect the arguments, particularly that of @Engorgeous George. But I’m still not sure I agree. Even George admits in his post “functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference.” It seems to me that this is the point. 

It is illegal for me to possess a tactical nuclear weapon. But suppose I designed a weapon that could do the exact same amount of damage except that it wasn’t nuclear. Would the authorities be unable to seize this new weapon from me because Congress hasn’t yet passed a law making it illegal? obviously that would be ridiculous. 
 

Congress made owning machine guns illegal about 100 years ago because of their function, which they deemed a threat to public safety. . So if you have another gun or addition to a gun which produces the same function (in this case a continual spray of bullets) then I don’t think you need a new law to determine that should be illegal  as well. So I guess I’m with the dissents on this one. 

[5-Points 3,461]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thanks for the responses to my questions. I appreciate and respect the arguments, particularly that of @Engorgeous George. But I’m still not sure I agree. Even George admits in his post “functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference.” It seems to me that this is the point. 

It is illegal for me to possess a tactical nuclear weapon. But suppose I designed a weapon that could do the exact same amount of damage except that it wasn’t nuclear. Would the authorities be unable to seize this new weapon from me because Congress hasn’t yet passed a law making it illegal? obviously that would be ridiculous. 
 

Congress made owning machine guns illegal about 100 years ago because of their function, which they deemed a threat to public safety. . So if you have another gun or addition to a gun which produces the same function (in this case a continual spray of bullets) then I don’t think you need a new law to determine that should be illegal  as well. So I guess I’m with the dissents on this one. 

 No they didn't. They just made it more expensive. You can own fully automatic weapons if you pay for the tax stamp. 

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thanks for the responses to my questions. I appreciate and respect the arguments, particularly that of @Engorgeous George. But I’m still not sure I agree. Even George admits in his post “functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference.” It seems to me that this is the point. 

It is illegal for me to possess a tactical nuclear weapon. But suppose I designed a weapon that could do the exact same amount of damage except that it wasn’t nuclear. Would the authorities be unable to seize this new weapon from me because Congress hasn’t yet passed a law making it illegal? obviously that would be ridiculous. 
 

Congress made owning machine guns illegal about 100 years ago because of their function, which they deemed a threat to public safety. . So if you have another gun or addition to a gun which produces the same function (in this case a continual spray of bullets) then I don’t think you need a new law to determine that should be illegal  as well. So I guess I’m with the dissents on this one. 

Nope.  The dissent wants to legislate.  That is not their job.  Sotomayor may be a fine legislator where she elected to that job, but her job is to interpret the law, to read the law with a view to whether it is constitutional.  In our tripartite system each branch needs to stay in their own lane.  A law banning contraception is not a law banning back seats in cars simply because a Justice might feel back seats lead to conception and such a law, if passed by congress should not be read that way.

 

Also, fully automatic weapons were banned in 1986 and that ban was not a complete ban, just a ban for those who did not register and qualify with the federal government, so 38 years ago, not 100.

[Gepetto 1,341]

13 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thanks for the responses to my questions. I appreciate and respect the arguments, particularly that of @Engorgeous George. But I’m still not sure I agree. Even George admits in his post “functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference.” It seems to me that this is the point. 

It is illegal for me to possess a tactical nuclear weapon. But suppose I designed a weapon that could do the exact same amount of damage except that it wasn’t nuclear. Would the authorities be unable to seize this new weapon from me because Congress hasn’t yet passed a law making it illegal? obviously that would be ridiculous. 
 

Congress made owning machine guns illegal about 100 years ago because of their function, which they deemed a threat to public safety. . So if you have another gun or addition to a gun which produces the same function (in this case a continual spray of bullets) then I don’t think you need a new law to determine that should be illegal  as well. So I guess I’m with the dissents on this one. 

Machine guns were banned to the public for purchase by law in 1986. People with machine guns pre-1986 are grandfathered in to still own and use them (I think). Congress or individual States need to make laws to ban bump stocks if that is what the public and/or lawmakers want. It's really that simple.

[Maximum Overkill 1,891]

13 hours ago, Pimpadeaux said:

bump-stock weapons

You can easily make any semi-auto weapon fully automatic. You don't need a bump stock for that. A gun person would know that, stop crying snowflake.  

[The Real timschochet 6,582]

Thanks for the correction in terms of 1986 vs 100 years ago. However I say the rest of my argument still holds true. 

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Thanks for the correction in terms of 1986 vs 100 years ago. However I say the rest of my argument still holds true. 

No it really doesn't, not under any form of recognized stautory interpretation.  Feelings do n ot come into it when there is a specific definition.  had congress passed a law that said in general no weapon or weapon system available to the general public shall be designed to have rates of fire over a certain limit, well then that general definition would encompass this.  When they went to a more specific definition that specificity rules.

 

In the end none of this matters if congress can get together on a new definition.  The Democrats certainly would be willing to do so.  As the bump stock ban was a Trump era matter it may be that there are some Republicans who would join in.  Now some on the NRA right would oppose as democrats have scared them with their rhetoric, but it would only take a few republicans to join in to get this done.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

I remember attending an outdoor fgun show in 1986 where Thompson had a booth set up trying to clear out their stock before the ban took effect.  They let you test fire Thompsons.  I did.  It was fun in an Untouchables fantasy camp sort of way, but I did not purchase one as I have no use for such a weapon.  There was also a company selling semiautomatic 10 gauge shotguns with an extended magazine.  They let you fire that as well.  I swear you could have taken down a barn with that thing.  Again I did not purchase as who has need of such, excepting perhaps demolition companies.

 

Also 10 gauge ammunition is not all that easy to come by, even then.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

If I remeber correctly the NRA supported the 1986 legislation as they got some clarifications they wanted.  Imagine that, 38 years ago the NRA did not knee jerk oppose firearms legislation.

[The Real timschochet 6,582]

6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

No it really doesn't, not under any form of recognized stautory interpretation.  Feelings do n ot come into it when there is a specific definition.  had congress passed a law that said in general no weapon or weapon system available to the general public shall be designed to have rates of fire over a certain limit, well then that general definition would encompass this.  When they went to a more specific definition that specificity rules.

 

In the end none of this matters if congress can get together on a new definition.  The Democrats certainly would be willing to do so.  As the bump stock ban was a Trump era matter it may be that there are some Republicans who would join in.  Now some on the NRA right would oppose as democrats have scared them with their rhetoric, but it would only take a few republicans to join in to get this done.

It won’t be done. Not with the 60 vote filibuster. 
 

And I still disagree with you. But that disagreement appears to be rooted in a more fundamental disagreement about the Supreme Court. I am not what conservatives would call an “originalist”. 

[5-Points 3,461]

4 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

If I remeber correctly the NRA supported the 1986 legislation as they got some clarifications they wanted.  Imagine that, 38 years ago the NRA did not knee jerk oppose firearms legislation.

We learned our lesson about giving an inch. It won't happen again. 

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It won’t be done. Not with the 60 vote filibuster. 
 

And I still disagree with you. But that disagreement appears to be rooted in a more fundamental disagreement about the Supreme Court. I am not what conservatives would call an “originalist”. 

When a statute is clear we don't get to the philosophies of an originalist.  There are several authoritative treatises on statutory interpretation and none of them worry about feelings such as Sotomayor relied upon.  You want what you want.  You want an outcome so for you the end justifies the means, but when we operate under the rule of law that is a poor metric for reaching an end.  The process is important, one might say imperative to prevent a dictatorship.  

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

We learned our lesson about giving an inch. It won't happen again. 

For those of us with a micropenis an inch is as good as a mile.

[5-Points 3,461]

46 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

For those of us with a micropenis an inch is as good as a mile.

I'm tired of listening to idiots, who know nothing about guns, clamoring for more "common sense gun laws." 

There's nothing sensible about anything they propose. I'm done compromising with disingenuous morons. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,002]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

I'm tired of listening to idiots, who know nothing about guns, clamoring for more "common sense gun laws." 

There's nothing sensible about anything they propose. I'm done compromising with disingenuous morons. 

Same here.  I mean, the OP had no idea what a bump stock even was or does.  He just saw the headline, saw that it had to do with guns and then screamed "OMG!  AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!" without once putting any thought or research into it.  He just parroted what he was told.  For the love of God, liberals still thin "AR" means "automatic rifle". 

To be fair, the OP does this with just about every topic he discusses.

[The Real timschochet 6,582]

4 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Same here.  I mean, the OP had no idea what a bump stock even was or does.  He just saw the headline, saw that it had to do with guns and then screamed "OMG!  AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!" without once putting any thought or research into it.  He just parroted what he was told.  For the love of God, liberals still thin "AR" means "automatic rifle". 

To be fair, the OP does this with just about every topic he discusses.

This is an old argument by pro-NRA types and it’s pretty tiresome. Simply put I don’t need to know how to make a hydrogen bomb or what its components are to know that I don’t want bad guys to have one. In your words, bump stocks allow one to spray bullets faster. George wrote that it’s functionally no different from having a machine gun. What else do I need to know? The answer is nothing. When Trump’s people banned bump stocks they were not rewriting law; Thomas and those who agree with him are simply wrong about this. Sotomayor’s dissent was correct. 

[Maximum Overkill 1,891]

 

 

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

29 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is an old argument by pro-NRA types and it’s pretty tiresome. Simply put I don’t need to know how to make a hydrogen bomb or what its components are to know that I don’t want bad guys to have one. In your words, bump stocks allow one to spray bullets faster. George wrote that it’s functionally no different from having a machine gun. What else do I need to know? The answer is nothing. When Trump’s people banned bump stocks they were not rewriting law; Thomas and those who agree with him are simply wrong about this. Sotomayor’s dissent was correct. 

No it was not, not remotely, not as a matter of law. Her standard of review, that she feels a thing ought to be, is no legal standard of review.  She is a judicial disgrace.  That her end result is what you wish the law to be does not change the fact that she has a job.  She has procedures she has to follow and she threw them all aside to argue for a legislative, not a judicial, result.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,002]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

No it was not, not remotely, not as a matter of law. Her standard of rfeview, taht she feels a thing ought to be is no legal sdtandard of review.  She is a judicial disgrace.  That her end result is what you wish the law to be does not change the fact that she has a job.  She has procedures she has to follow and she threw them all aside to argue for a legislative, not a judicial, result.

This is pretty easy to understand but Tim's response (and Sotomayer's) only underscore that liberals always act on emotion (not based in fact) and conservatives on logic and reason.

Dealing with a liberal is like dealing with a teenage girl who just got dumped.  That's how erratic and emotional they are.

[Strike 5,376]

For the record, approximately 18 states have outlawed bump stocks.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

For the record, approximately 18 states have outlawed bump stocks.

For the record you can more or less guess which states by guessing blue states on an electoral map but with Michigan and Florida flipped.  I support the right of those states to ban the appliance if they can do so under their state constitutions and I do not think the ruling yesterrday has any real impact on thier right to do so.

[Strike 5,376]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

For the record you can more or less guess which states by guessing blue states on an electoral map but with Michigan and Florida flipped.  I support the right of those states to ban the appliance if they can do so under their state constitutions and I do not think the ruling yesterrday has any real impact on thier right to do so.

That's kind of my point.  There is a legislative path to this end, whether at the state or federal level.  Tim would rather bypass that process and have our overloads rule by decree, as long as those overlords think as he does.  As soon as Trump is elected the rules change though.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

That's kind of my point.  There is a legislative path to this end, whether at the state or federal level.  Tim would rather bypass that process and have our overloads rule by decree, as long as those overlords think as he does.  As soon as Trump is elected the rules change though.

The beauty and the curse of our system is the ignorant are allowed opinions, votes, and the right to express either.  Tim is supremely confident in his own intelligence and in the rightness of his ill-founded opinions.  To some extent we are all guilty of the same hubris though hopefully in magnitudes less than is he.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is an old argument by pro-NRA types and it’s pretty tiresome. Simply put I don’t need to know how to make a hydrogen bomb or what its components are to know that I don’t want bad guys to have one. In your words, bump stocks allow one to spray bullets faster. George wrote that it’s functionally no different from having a machine gun. What else do I need to know? The answer is nothing. When Trump’s people banned bump stocks they were not rewriting law; Thomas and those who agree with him are simply wrong about this. Sotomayor’s dissent was correct. 

You need know nothing more to form your opinion.  Writing legislation, however, requires much more, it requires knowledge of the subject.  For years you have sought ignorance on the subject of firearms, a subject you could ahve mastered by now if you had simply processed the information shoved before you in these forums, yet you have refused to do so.  You could have taken a course in firearm handling, safety and use yet you chose not to so that you can argue from ignorance.  it would seem anyone so passionate about a subject might spend a bit of time and energy acquainting themselves with the subject, but you, you tout your own ignorance.  Your persistence in doing so, is, however, admirable.  Persistence is a great trait.  Unfortuantely persistence without a plan is simply the yipping of a lap dog.

[weepaws 3,165]

2 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

You need know nothing more to form your opinion.  Writing legislation, however, requires mcuh more, it requires knowledge of the subject.  For years you have sought ignorance on the subject of firearms, a subject you could ahve mastered by now if you had simply processed the information shoved before you in these forums, yet you have refused to do so.  You could have gtaken a course in firearm handling, safety and use yet you choce not to so that you can argue from ignorance.  it would seem anyone so passionate about a subject might spernd a minute bit of time and energy acquainting themselves with the subject, but you, you tout your own ignorance.  Your persistence in doing so, is, howevere, admirable.  Persistence is a great trait.  Unfortuantely persistence without a plan is simply the yipping of a lap dog.

Acts 28:31.  Preaching the Kingdom of God and Teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all Confidence, no one forbidding.   That’s a concern of God.  Amen brother. 

Thanks. 

[jerryskids 6,699]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is an old argument by pro-NRA types and it’s pretty tiresome. Simply put I don’t need to know how to make a hydrogen bomb or what its components are to know that I don’t want bad guys to have one. In your words, bump stocks allow one to spray bullets faster. George wrote that it’s functionally no different from having a machine gun. What else do I need to know? The answer is nothing. When Trump’s people banned bump stocks they were not rewriting law; Thomas and those who agree with him are simply wrong about this. Sotomayor’s dissent was correct. 

 

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

No it was not, not remotely, not as a matter of law. Her standard of review, that she feels a thing ought to be, is no legal standard of review.  She is a judicial disgrace.  That her end result is what you wish the law to be does not change the fact that she has a job.  She has procedures she has to follow and she threw them all aside to argue for a legislative, not a judicial, result.

Great post.

As has been pointed out, this is a legislative issue.

With the possibility of Trump retaking office, and the fear of the Left that he's going to try to take over the country, you would think that folks with TDS would be happy that we have a court which is stopping the Executive Branch from overstepping its powers.   

[The Real timschochet 6,582]

3 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

You need know nothing more to form your opinion.  Writing legislation, however, requires much more, it requires knowledge of the subject.  For years you have sought ignorance on the subject of firearms, a subject you could ahve mastered by now if you had simply processed the information shoved before you in these forums, yet you have refused to do so.  You could have taken a course in firearm handling, safety and use yet you chose not to so that you can argue from ignorance.  it would seem anyone so passionate about a subject might spend a bit of time and energy acquainting themselves with the subject, but you, you tout your own ignorance.  Your persistence in doing so, is, howevere, admirable.  Persistence is a great trait.  Unfortuantely persistence without a plan is simply the yipping of a lap dog.

You may be confusing me with some other people. I have very little interest in firearms issues. And I actually oppose most firearms legislation. I don’t think it helps, and a lot of it interferes with the freedom of lawful gun owners who should be allowed to do what they want. Im not too big on gun control in most situations. And I’m also just not that interested. If I was I would try to educate myself more because I believe in your general premise. 
 

But in this instance I completely differ with you. Sotomayor is not legislating and she’s not acting from emotion. Neither am I. Her position, and mine, is very well reasoned. Simply put we’re both operating on the premise of if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it’s a duck. You don’t agree with our reasoning and you agree with Thomas’ tortured attempt to differentiate between bump stocks and automated weapons. I think YOU are the one relying on emotion here- and Clarence Thomas. 
Conservatives are extremely selective when it comes to originalist thinking. 

[5-Points 3,461]

5 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Same here.  I mean, the OP had no idea what a bump stock even was or does.  He just saw the headline, saw that it had to do with guns and then screamed "OMG!  AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!" without once putting any thought or research into it.  He just parroted what he was told.  For the love of God, liberals still thin "AR" means "automatic rifle". 

To be fair, the OP does this with just about every topic he discusses.

If you don't know the difference between automatic vs semi-automatic or bolt action vs lever action or that people use handguns to kill people far more often than they use any kind of a rifle, let alone AR's specifically, then your opinion on the subject is meaningless and, as far as I'm concerned, you should really just stfu about it. 

That goes for message board posters, members of Congress and SCOTUS Justices. 

[seafoam1 2,910]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:44 PM, IGotWorms said:

Hooray! Maybe some psycho killer can top that Las Vegas guy now

 

 

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Trump administration after a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

The decision, by a vote of 6 to 3, split along ideological lines. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device, an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a speed rivaling that of a machine gun.

The agency, he added, had overstepped in issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns.

“We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Thomas wrote. He included several diagrams of the firing mechanism in the opinion.

…

Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench, a practice reserved for profound disagreements and the first such announcement of the term. “The majority puts machine guns back in civilian hands,” she said.

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “A bump stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

 

5 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Same here.  I mean, the OP had no idea what a bump stock even was or does.  He just saw the headline, saw that it had to do with guns and then screamed "OMG!  AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!" without once putting any thought or research into it.  He just parroted what he was told.  For the love of God, liberals still thin "AR" means "automatic rifle". 

To be fair, the OP does this with just about every topic he discusses.

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

If you don't know the difference between automatic vs semi-automatic or bolt action vs lever action or that people use handguns to kill people far more often than they use any kind of a rifle, let alone AR's specifically, then your opinion on the subject is meaningless and, as far as I'm concerned, you should really just stfu about it. 

This sums it up...

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

You may be confusing me with some other people. I have very little interest in firearms issues. And I actually oppose most firearms legislation. I don’t think it helps, and a lot of it interferes with the freedom of lawful gun owners who should be allowed to do what they want. Im not too big on gun control in most situations. And I’m also just not that interested. If I was I would try to educate myself more because I believe in your general premise. 
 

But in this instance I completely differ with you. Sotomayor is not legislating and she’s not acting from emotion. Neither am I. Her position, and mine, is very well reasoned. Simply put we’re both operating on the premise of if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it’s a duck. You don’t agree with our reasoning and you agree with Thomas’ tortured attempt to differentiate between bump stocks and automated weapons. I think YOU are the one relying on emotion here- and Clarence Thomas. 
Conservatives are extremely selective when it comes to originalist thinking. 

I understand you are far too stuborn to change your view regardless of it being based on a misunderstanding of what a Supreme Court review ought to do. You opine on legal matters without understanding them.  To you the only metric which matters is the outcome.  You have every right to your opinion.  You have every right to wear your ignorance as a badge.  I salute you and your badge.

 

Knockin' on Heaven's Door (Live at Madison Square Garden, New York, NY - January 1974) (youtube.com)

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

You may be confusing me with some other people. I have very little interest in firearms issues. And I actually oppose most firearms legislation. I don’t think it helps, and a lot of it interferes with the freedom of lawful gun owners who should be allowed to do what they want. Im not too big on gun control in most situations. And I’m also just not that interested. If I was I would try to educate myself more because I believe in your general premise. 
 

But in this instance I completely differ with you. Sotomayor is not legislating and she’s not acting from emotion. Neither am I. Her position, and mine, is very well reasoned. Simply put we’re both operating on the premise of if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it’s a duck. You don’t agree with our reasoning and you agree with Thomas’ tortured attempt to differentiate between bump stocks and automated weapons. I think YOU are the one relying on emotion here- and Clarence Thomas. 
Conservatives are extremely selective when it comes to originalist thinking. 

https://www.sportsmans.com/hunting-gear-supplies/decoys-calls-scents/decoys/duck-decoys/c/cat100370

 

Those are not ducks.

[SUXBNME 1,479]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

https://www.sportsmans.com/hunting-gear-supplies/decoys-calls-scents/decoys/duck-decoys/c/cat100370

 

Those are not ducks.

[Engorgeous George 2,271]

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=video+of+a+duck+pull+toy&mid=15AA917C110B40568B9415AA917C110B40568B94&FORM=VIRE

 

Also not a duck.

 

In reviewing legislation the first question the Supremes have to ask is whether congress had the right to legislate in the area.  The second question is whether they passed constitutional legislation.  The third question is whether that legislation was exclusive and exhaustive on a subject or whether it was general so as to include new cases or examples appropriate for inclusion in a nonexhaustive category.  Sotomayor ignored the third question.  She determined that an exhaustive definiton was open to inclusion of matters she felt the legislature  might have included had they left the definition open and nonexhaustive becasue she feels they might have.  That is patently inappropriate review.

[TimHauck 2,714]

On 6/14/2024 at 5:16 PM, Maximum Overkill said:

 

 

No, this person was not a tranny.  It was a female that also used a male name as an alias to commit crimes.

[Maximum Overkill 1,891]

16 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

, this person was not a tranny.  

It was a Tranny, say it!  

[TimHauck 2,714]

38 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

It was a Tranny, say it!  

Nashville shooter was a tranny.  Lakewood shooter was not.

[Nomad99 720]

Anyone that thinks a bump stock equates to a machine gun also thinks "manual" mode in on an automatic  transmission makes it a standard

[seafoam1 2,910]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Nashville shooter was a tranny. 

Violent.