bump stock ban

[Irish Pat]

sumpreme court voted 6-3 reversed the bump stock ban

[Tell Sackett SASS 18436]

Gee, I wonder how that vote broke down?

[Ranger Dan]

Just a reminder that there are still 3 justices on the supreme court that don't believe in the constitution.

[Pat Riot]

So, is that a good thing? This issue has bounced back and forth so much I have become completely numb to it. 
 

I thought bump stocks were stupid when they came out and I still do, but I support YOUR right to own and use them. 

[Cypress Sun]

My Dad told me long ago, that the most important reason on deciding on your pick for President is because of the appointments to the SCOTUS. 

 

I've remembered that all of my life.

 

By far and away...That is THE most important reason. 

 

 

[Cypress Sun]

28 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

So, is that a good thing? This issue has bounced back and forth so much I have become completely numb to it. 
 

I thought bump stocks were stupid when they came out and I still do, but I support YOUR right to own and use them. 

 

BTW, I got it...

[T.K.]

The three dissenting votes are justices that believe the Constitution is something they must dismantle.

One of them cannot even define what a "Woman" is!!!

[PowderRiverCowboy]

49 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

So, is that a good thing? This issue has bounced back and forth so much I have become completely numb to it. 
 

I thought bump stocks were stupid when they came out and I still do, but I support YOUR right to own and use them. 

 

Agreed there , dont want one , and I wont go into the So called Pro 2A person that started the Ban  that video is in another place here , Ban firearms and take them and let them fight in courts for years. 

[Cypress Sun]

4 minutes ago, PowderRiverCowboy said:

 

Agreed there , dont want one , and I wont go into the So called Pro 2A person that started the Ban  that video is in another place here , Ban firearms and take them and let them fight in courts for years. 

 

That's true. Both he AND the NRA supported the ban.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I have Zero use for one.

I'm Not into Black rifles at all.

But if we don't stand and fight for everyone & everything.

One day that thing will be your thing.

It's hard to believe that they would come for Single Action Firearms. 

But they want to take them all !

So we need to fight every battle to protect all Rights.

God Bless America 

They can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands. 

 

Edited June 14 by Rooster Ron Wayne

[Irish Pat]

i don’t want or need one but i had a little 9mm SBR with an arm brace stock and 10” barrel that fell under a new ATF ruling that I had to take the stock off. Silliness 

[Sedalia Dave]

Saw in the news that the left is baffled why do many gun owners think Hunters conviction was wrong. They cannot wrap their non-thinking brains why we oppose background checks to begin with.

[Pb Mark]

This ban overturn had nothing to do with the second amendment.  

 

This case only stated that congress creates new laws, nobody else.  Nothing about the second amendment was addressed.

 

Now for the important question:  It appears that a properly configured bump stock could be used to open and close a lever action rifle and turn them into cowboy assault rifles.  When does the SASS rulebook change happen?  Just asking for a friend who refuses to own an AR-15.  

[Cypress Sun]

I wonder how many of them mysteriously re-appear from the depth of the lake they fell into.

[John Barleycorn, SASS #76982]

Now if they can get rid of the brace mess. Another item that was perfectly fine then a decision that forced you to remove it, or NFA the gun. 

Edited June 14 by John Barleycorn, SASS #76982

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-cargill/

 

Quote

Garland v. Cargill

FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare

 

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
22-976	5th Cir.	Feb 28, 2024	Jun 14, 2024	6-3	Thomas	OT 2023

 

Holding: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 14, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

 

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban/

 

Quote

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a rule that banned bump stocks, issued by the Trump administration after a 2017 mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas. By a vote of 6-3, the justices rejected the federal government’s argument that rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns, which are generally prohibited under federal law. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s conservative justices emphasized that Congress could have enacted a law that banned all weapons capable of high rates of fire, but it did not – and so the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was wrong to interpret the federal ban on machine guns to extend to bump stocks.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by the court’s other more liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She warned that the majority’s decision “will have deadly consequences.”

 

 

Here is the full decision.  Short, only 42 pages.  And DON'T give me the crapola that "It's too long to read!"  If you can't focus for that long maybe you should reconsider how you really feel about our republic.  42 pages is nothing.   

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

 

Quote

MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL CARGILL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [June 14, 2024] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Shooters have devised techniques for firing semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. One technique is called bump firing. A shooter who bump fires a rifle uses the firearm’s recoil to help rapidly manipulate the trigger. The shooter allows the recoil from one shot to push the whole firearm backward. As the rifle slides back and away from the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, the trigger is released and reset for the next shot. Simultaneously, the shooter uses his nontrigger hand to maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. The forward pressure counteracts the recoil and causes the firearm (and thus the trigger) to move forward and “bump” into the shooter’s trigger finger. This bump reengages the trigger and causes another shot to fire, and so on. Bump firing is a balancing act. The shooter must maintain enough forward pressure to ensure that he will bump the trigger with sufficient force to engage it. But, if the shooter applies too much forward pressure, the rifle will not slide back far enough to allow the trigger to reset. The right balance produces a reciprocating motion that permits the shooter to repeatedly engage and release the trigger in rapid succession. Although bump firing does not require any additional Cite as: 602 U. S. ____ (2024) 3 Opinion of the Court equipment, there are accessories designed to make the technique easier. A “bump stock” is one such accessory.1

=================================================================================================

ATF issued its final Rule in 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 66514. The agency’s earlier regulations simply restated §5845(b)’s statutory definition. Ibid. The final Rule amended those regulations by adding the following language: Cite as: 602 U. S. ____ (2024) 5 Opinion of the Court “[T]he term ‘automatically’ as it modifies ‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,’ means functioning as the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and ‘single function of the trigger’ means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term ‘machinegun’ includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” Id., at 66553–66554. The final Rule also repudiated ATF’s previous guidance that bump stocks did not qualify as “machineguns” under §5845(b). Id., at 66530–66531. And, it ordered owners of bump stocks to destroy them or surrender them to ATF within 90 days. Id., at 66530. Bump-stock owners who failed to comply would be subject to criminal prosecution. Id., at 66525; see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o)(1).

==========================================================================================================

Finally, the position that ATF and the dissent endorse is logically inconsistent. They reason that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger because a shooter “need only pull the trigger and maintain forward pressure” to “activate continuous fire.” Post, at 10; see also Brief for Petitioners 23. If that is correct, however, then the same should be true for a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock. After all, as the dissent and ATF themselves acknowledge, a shooter manually bump firing a semiautomatic rifle can achieve continuous fire by holding his trigger finger stationary and maintaining forward pressure with his nontrigger hand. See post, at 5; 83 Fed. Reg. 66533. Yet, they agree that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock “fires only one shot each time the shooter pulls the trigger.” Post, at 4; see also 83 Fed. Reg. 66534. Their argument is thus at odds with itself. We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger

================================================================================================================

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it. The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning. There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.

 

 

 

 

[Buckshot Bear]

Damn they look fun!!!!!!!!

 

 

[Pat Riot]

16 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

I wonder how many of them mysteriously re-appear from the depth of the lake they fell into.

Their Excaliburs will be returned to them by the Lady of the Lake.

I will be happy to hook anyone up with a sorcerer near you for a small fee. 

[Pat Riot]

15 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Here is the full decision.  Short, only 42 pages.  And DON'T give me the crapola that "It's too long to read!"  If you can't focus for that long maybe you should reconsider how you really feel about our republic.  42 pages is nothing.   

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

You tell ‘em Joe! 

[Pat Riot]

6 hours ago, Buckshot Bear said:

Damn they look fun!!!!!!!!

They are…and then you look at the ground and see fifty cent pieces lying on the ground shaped like brass and then you look at your target to see your hits and you put it away and get another cheaper gun to fire and actually hit your target. 
 

Fifty cent piece = 0.5 USD = 0.76 AUD

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

21 hours ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

I have Zero use for one.

I'm Not into Black rifles at all.

But if we don't stand and fight for everyone & everything.

One day that thing will be your thing.

It's hard to believe that they would come for Single Action Firearms. 

But they want to take them all !

So we need to fight every battle to protect all Rights.

God Bless America 

They can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands. 

 

And here's the other side to that. Most of the people who have just reached voting age or are about to reach voting age didn't grow up with guns. The only thing they know about guns is that they don't want to get shot with them and they don't want their friends to get shot. If you keep opposing everything because of some slippery slope argument, I guarantee that you're getting outvoted sooner than you think and it's gonna be a lot more strict than it would have been. It won't fix the problem but it will be way stricter. You know there's things that need to be improved so why aren't Republicans writing their own laws that won't do more harm than good?

[Trigger Mike]

21 hours ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

I have Zero use for one.

I'm Not into Black rifles at all.

But if we don't stand and fight for everyone & everything.

One day that thing will be your thing.

It's hard to believe that they would come for Single Action Firearms. 

But they want to take them all !

So we need to fight every battle to protect all Rights.

God Bless America 

They can have mine when they pry them from my cold dead hands. 

 

They do want them all.  A while back the current vice president was very coherent in detailing how they wanted to ban all cartridge guns including those made prior to 1898 .  

[Still hand Bill]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:18 AM, Pat Riot said:

So, is that a good thing? This issue has bounced back and forth so much I have become completely numb to it. 
 

I thought bump stocks were stupid when they came out and I still do, but I support YOUR right to own and use them. 

Yes a good thing.  I agree that actual bump stocks are sort of silly, but the ruling says the atf can not interpret a law differently than it’s written.   The whole case was about atf reinterpretation of the law and banning things that met the letter of the law.  The dissent was basically the laws intent was to ban rapid fire, thus the reinterpretation is ok.   Problem was the law said nothing about rate of fire.   It simply says a machine gun will automatically fire more than one shot with each function of the trigger.  A bump stock does not do this.  
 

congress can easily make a law to ban bump stocks and that I believe would be legal.  This ruling clarifies that the president can not have agencies make new rules/interpretations when they can’t get the law passed. 

[Still hand Bill]

23 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Saw in the news that the left is baffled why do many gun owners think Hunters conviction was wrong. They cannot wrap their non-thinking brains why we oppose background checks to begin with.

I don’t oppose background checks, I oppose having a record of every transaction so that a database of who owns what is created.  Unfortunately they both go together with todays 4473.  No question that’s why your name and gun information are on the same page of the 4473 now.  Much easier to scan and record the data.  

[John Kloehr]

51 minutes ago, Still hand Bill said:

Yes a good thing.  I agree that actual bump stocks are sort of silly, but the ruling says the atf can not interpret a law differently than it’s written.   The whole case was about atf reinterpretation of the law and banning things that met the letter of the law.  The dissent was basically the laws intent was to ban rapid fire, thus the reinterpretation is ok.   Problem was the law said nothing about rate of fire.   It simply says a machine gun will automatically fire more than one shot with each function of the trigger.  A bump stock does not do this.  
 

congress can easily make a law to ban bump stocks and that I believe would be legal.  This ruling clarifies that the president can not have agencies make new rules/interpretations when they can’t get the law passed. 

Excellent summary, very similar to my own.

 

I do want to add and comment on a sentence in Alito's concurrence:

 

"There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U.S.C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machine gun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it."

 

I think this telegraphs a clear message. Should congress ban bump stocks, SCOTUS will likely find the ban constitutional.

 

Edited June 15 by John Kloehr

[Stump Water]

Since bump stocks came out I've said they were nothing more than a gimmick and that there's no way they could enable an SA AR to "pull the trigger" faster than you can.  Of course I was scoffed at.  Because, you know, I'm not Jerry Miculek.

 

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

If Congress can ban bumpstocks, which I agree are silly gimmicks, what will they ban next, seeing as you can bump fire using a belt loop,  rubber band,  stick. Or even just your hands and some practice.   

 

We must,  MUST, be as adamant in our defense of our constitutionally enumerated and protected civil rights as pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage,  and climate change advocates are. 

 

As Josef Vissaronovich said in General Order 227;

 

Ни шагу назад!

 

Not one step back!

[Rip Snorter]

IMHO, the point they were making is that only legislators can make and pass laws.  Personally neither the bump stock or pistol brace were of interest.  The extra legal  regulation was.  This decision should stand equally against their new rule on firearms sales.

[Still hand Bill]

1 minute ago, Rip Snorter said:

IMHO, the point they were making is that only legislators can make and pass laws.  Personally neither the bump stock or pistol brace were of interest.  The extra legal  regulation was.  This decision should stand equally against their new rule on firearms sales.

Unfortunately I don’t agree on the rule for sales.  I believe the statute is not as clear as the machine gun definition and may allow the atf to write the rule.  I think there is still a chance the sale rule will get thrown out, I am not sure this case will help.   The biggest argument against the new sale rule is that it has no clear metrics for what constitutes engaged in the business.  That is problematic as the potential criminal has no idea they are breaking the rule until they get charged.  Ie leniency is going to the prosecutor not the accused.  
 

 

[John Kloehr]

39 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

If Congress can ban bumpstocks, which I agree are silly gimmicks, what will they ban next, seeing as you can bump fire using a belt loop,  rubber band,  stick. Or even just your hands and some practice.   

 

We must,  MUST, be as adamant in our defense of our constitutionally enumerated and protected civil rights as pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage,  and climate change advocates are. 

The only reason congress could conceivably ban them is none were manufactured prior to the machine-gun cutoff.

 

While one can buy an old full-auto -- and pay the tax stamp for it -- there is no such path for a bump stock. There is no option to register a new one. This might be an avenue for constitutional challenge and it might bring down the entire structure from 1934 onwards.

 

For this ruling, Alito and the rest of the conservatives stuck to the law as written, even though Alito specifically noted congress likely would have included bump stocks had the invention been foreseen. The three liberals saw the same thing, and even tried to construe the text as including them (it does not). But were willing to rule on intent instead of text; this is legislating from the bench and not permissible.

 

It has been seven years since Vegas, plenty of time for congress to re-examine and carefully craft a revised text. And for the ATF to write compliant rules. And then there may still be valid 2A challenges. I won't form an opinion on unwritten legislation or predict the fallout (tax stamps for this new invention as a dramatic technological change maybe?)? Or a step too far undoing a century of regulation.

[J-BAR #18287]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:03 PM, Pb Mark said:

This ban overturn had nothing to do with the second amendment.  

This.

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

The only reason congress could conceivably ban them is none were manufactured prior to the machine-gun cutoff.

 

While one can buy an old full-auto -- and pay the tax stamp for it -- there is no such path for a bump stock. There is no option to register a new one. This might be an avenue for constitutional challenge and it might bring down the entire structure from 1934 onwards.

 

For this ruling, Alito and the rest of the conservatives stuck to the law as written, even though Alito specifically noted congress likely would have included bump stocks had the invention been foreseen. The three liberals saw the same thing, and even tried to construe the text as including them (it does not). But were willing to rule on intent instead of text; this is legislating from the bench and not permissible.

 

It has been seven years since Vegas, plenty of time for congress to re-examine and carefully craft a revised text. And for the ATF to write compliant rules. And then there may still be valid 2A challenges. I won't form an opinion on unwritten legislation or predict the fallout (tax stamps for this new invention as a dramatic technological change maybe?)? Or a step too far undoing a century of regulation.

 

All good and valid points.  But I  think you might have missed my point.   I  don't see how Congress could craft a law to ban only purpose made bumpstocks. To cover all possible permutations such a law would almost have to be written something like "any device or object that could be used to increase the rate of fire, " which would have to include beltloops,  rubber bands,  sticks, etc.  

[Rip Snorter]

A pretty decent take on possible outcomes https://dailycaller.com/2024/06/14/bump-stocks-ban-trump-legal-challenge/

[John Kloehr]

27 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

All good and valid points.  But I  think you might have missed my point.   I  don't see how Congress could craft a law to ban only purpose made bumpstocks. To cover all possible permutations such a law would almost have to be written something like "any device or object that could be used to increase the rate of fire, " which would have to include beltloops,  rubber bands,  sticks, etc.  

A rewrite would likely not be all-encompassing. Trying to do so might make it invalid on other constitutional grounds.

 

But it could include the outer limits of the current bump stocks.

 

As noted in the dissent, firearms can be bump-fired with string, rubber bands, and other ways but those means do not include sighting and aiming, just hip shooting. That could still be bad.

 

At this time, the devices with springs are not challenged. The stocks covered by the ruling are sliding stocks. So no sliding parts, no springs or dampers, no "recoil pads"  which actually rebound with sufficient force to promote bump firing (as compared to simple absorption), no "shelf" to place the trigger finger to promote bump firing.

 

Not saying it would pass constitutional review, but it could be written well enough to cover these devices.

 

Perhaps a law which prohibited bump firing in any form at all... Hmm, not aware of any history or tradition for such a law. I do not think it would be constitutional. Do have old laws banning dueling. And setting trap guns. Shooting in populated areas. So laws against improper use are generally valid.

 

Simply shooting fast, tuned triggers for competition, smithing like on our cowboy guns. Completely constitutional. Using out cowboy guns to create mayhem? No, we punish that.

 

Sentencing enhancements for bump firing with intent to kill, injure, or instill fear? Why not. Not that it would really make any difference in terms of the Vegas event, but would be in line with Northampton. I think we already have those laws even if bump stocks are not explicitly mentioned.

 

I do not trust congress to write presumptively constitutional laws, I don't trust them to write sensible ones either.  Like a certain person who wants to ban barrel shrouds because they protect the shooter from barrel burns.

 

But congress may be able to enact a constitutional ban on bumpstockj, or might have to craft an exception for them by registration as machine-guns since they did not exist when they passed a ban on new machine-guns.

[Still hand Bill]

It does pose the interesting problem of what to do with exiting units if made illegal by congress.  One good outcome would be to open the registry and add bump stocks and other devices (forced reset triggers and binary triggers) as machine guns.  There are only about 400k transferable machine guns.  Increasing that number would be great and hopefully drive down prices.  Also once it’s a machine gun, you could just convert to a full autosear.   No need to keep it as a bump stock if it’s a nfa machine gun.