Congress doesn't have to write a law that specifically goes after the action though, they can just as easily write a law that allows no firearms with a rate of fire greater than X rounds per minute (which would presumably be however fast the fastest shooter can pull the trigger). There are plenty of people who can fire 6 accurate rounds in under 2 seconds, so X would be in the range of at least 250 for a semi-auto rifle. Whether or not it is easy to accomplish their goal, if the route they take is to regulate a specific firing mechanism, then the court is right to say some other firing mechanism doesn't fall within that regulation. Not only was the court right, Congress and the ATF knew the court was right, because Congress tried to pass a separate bump stock ban (that failed), and the ATF had previously issued an opinion that bump stocks were not machineguns, neither of which would have been necessary if bump stock firearms were already regulated as machineguns.
Having listened to the oral arguments, it's pretty clear that some type of immunity is coming... and MAYBE part of the issue is sent back to lower courts for further rulings. Bottom line: Trump trials delayed waaaaay past November... and some charges fall away. Bonus: Hopefully the phony Enron accounting charges against the J6 defendants are lifted and these political prisoners are set free.
HIGHLY TECHNICAL. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban/ In a highly technical 19-page ruling, Thomas concluded that the law does not support the ATF’s rule banning bump stocks. First, he explained, semiautomatic rifles that are equipped with bump stocks do not file more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” Each time that a shooter fires the rifle, Thomas emphasized, the shooter must “release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot.” The bump stock, he wrote, “merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate ‘functions’ of the trigger” by allowing the shooter to quickly press the trigger again. Moreover, Thomas continued, even if a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it does not do so “automatically,” as the law also requires. Thomas explained that if a shooter wants to fire multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock, he “must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his nontrigger hand.” This additional input from the shooter, he reasoned, means that the shots are not automatic. Justice Thomas went highly technical to strike down the ban. The shooter doesn't need to release pressure and re-engage the trigger when using a bump stock. Instead, the shooter presses and holds the trigger. The bump stock automates the re-triggering process through mechanical energy from the recoil. It's an add-on that facilitates automatic re-triggering through mechanical energy. Similarly, a fully automatic firearm has an internal mechanism for automating the firing process. Both bump stocks and fully automatic firearms meet the criterion of firing multiple rounds "by a single function of the trigger." Thomas's statement that the shooter must "release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot" is incorrect when it comes to bump stocks. With a bump stock, the shooter's finger remains stationary on the trigger, and the stock's design allows the firearm to move back and forth, enabling repeated firing. His claim that bump stocks do not function automatically is also inaccurate. "Automatically" means continuing without further action by the shooter beyond the initial trigger pull. Both bump stocks and machine guns meet this definition. If bump stocks are considered non-automatic, then by similar reasoning, machine guns should also be considered non-automatic, which contradicts the common understanding. A bump stock utilizes the firearm's recoil (mechanical energy) to automatically reset and re-engage the trigger, facilitating rapid firing. The shooter maintains constant forward pressure on the foregrip and keeps their finger stationary on the trigger. This mechanism allows the firearm to fire multiple rounds rapidly by harnessing the recoil to facilitate repeated trigger activations. While the shooter maintains pressure on the trigger, each shot still involves a discrete trigger activation facilitated by the bump stock's use of mechanical energy. In contrast, a machine gun uses an internal mechanism that automatically cycles the action and fires rounds continuously as long as the trigger is held down. This internal mechanism also relies on mechanical energy to operate, cycling through firing, ejecting, and chambering rounds without additional input from the shooter (except maintaining pressure on the trigger). Therefore, both a bump stock-equipped rifle and a machine gun use mechanical energy to achieve rapid firing, but the machine gun does so through a fully internal mechanism that meets the common understanding of automatic fire, whereas the bump stock achieves a similar effect through external mechanical facilitation. Anyhow, I do not mind so much this type of highly technical ruling based on the letter of the law if it's consistent. Let's apply that approach to the 2nd Amendment. "Arms" of 1791 are not technically the same as "arms" of today. A highly technical approach would define "arms" of 1791 as simply arms of 1791, which are muskets, rifles, pistols, cannons, and swords. A highly technical approach would not simply disregard the "well-regulated militia" phrase. A semblance of a technical approach would say "arms" (of the 1791 style) are for a well-regulated militia to protect the State. If it was for personal protection, it would have included that language. Without that language or an act of Congress, it's limited to those technicalities.
Ten seconds later... MAGA Influencers Spread Fake SCOTUS Barricade Videos Before Trump Ruling William Vaillancourt Mon, 17 June 2024 at 11:50 pm GMT-4·2-min read Several right-wing accounts on X pushed a false narrative Monday that barricades had been installed around the Supreme Court ahead of its ruling regarding former President Donald Trump’s sweeping claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. In a since-deleted post, Turning Point USA contributor and serial plagiarist Benny Johnson shared a 22-second video clip of barricades surrounding the high court. The clip began to gain traction and the same video soon showed up on several other right-wing accounts. One widely circulated post by @dom_lucre received more than 1 million views as of publication. “BREAKING NEWS: A fence is being installed at the U.S. Supreme Court. The last time this happened was prior to the Roe v Wade decision,” the caption read. But it didn’t take long for others to correct the reports. NBC News court reporter Daniel Barnes posted a photograph of the court taken Monday night from across the street—showing clearly that no such barrier or fencing had been erected. Continued...
I don't think its a question of "falling for..." since I am pretty sure he doesn't care if its disinformation or not. In fact, he probably likes that he is spreading disinformation. Its the trump way... tell a lie over and over again. Rinse. Repeat. People often attribute "The Big Lie" to goebbels but there is some question whether he actually said: Instead, what goebbels and hitler did do is push disinformation to meet their political cause. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot Funny, this sure sounds like trump, no? And, his supporters?
^ a perfect illustration of why textualism and originalism and other code phrases that people like to use were full of **** when they were made (remember when the rightists use to complain about judicial activism lol) and are more full of **** now. Disingenuous turds will always find a way to get to the policy outcome they want - they're not worth listening to or taking seriously anymore
I would love to see a liberal give a supported argument as to why the government and the police should be the only ones to own guns. With all the abuses of power that we have seen by the Biden Administration, and with all the alleged abuses of power that liberals accuse the police of... it boggles the mind how people think it's a good idea to give the government and police unrestrained power -- which is what they would have if the populace were disarmed. It's also completely ignorant of history, where governments across the world are by far the biggest murderers. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers had foresight far superior than today's American liberal when they penned the 2nd amendment... which provides the ultimate check on government power... and is one of the best ways to give power to the people... which is kinda important in a democratic republic.
So a ruling that relies entirely on the text is an illustration of why textualism/originalism is full of ****? What are you talking about? There is a law that was written in the 1930s that regulated fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic means the same thing now that it did then (the weapon continues to fire without a trigger reset). The ATF tried to change the definition without a new law passing and the court said no, the original meaning is still what the law means. I'm sorry it bothers you that there is now a Supreme Court that goes by the text of the laws instead of relying on vibes to figure out what is in the penumbras of the text like they did in the 60s.
What you call abuses of power by the Biden Administration are what the felon and psychopath Trump wants you to believe is true. You've been conned by a con.
Lol you don't actually know what you're talking about as usual. The ruling didn't rely "entirely on the text" and thusly "is an illustration" Ironically - the ruling actually RELIED EXPRESSLY ON ILLUSTRATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT Like this gif - cited in the text and of course provided by a noxious pro gun violence lobbying group Did not exist in 1934. Nor did any of the drawings cited at pp. 8-11 This ****er did what ****ers like that always do - take the "text" , put in a bunch of mind reading " in 1934 they must have meant TRIGGER PULLS more so than HAMMER COCKS (just total gun fetish homoeroticism but whatever)more so than caring about spraying tons of bullets into bodies" . Also threw in a bunch of outright lies about ATF changing it's rules, because it's Clarence Thomas and the man literally lies about absolutely everything And then , you get the policy outcome you want. That is it. That is the only legal analysis of Garland that exists in the real world. The rest of it just lying by a bunch of bad faith liars like @StupidMoniker
Imagine rampant problems across all sectors and people wanna argue over what constitutes a trigger pull to simply ban something that really isn't a problem/
The illustrations are just a way of explaining to people who don't know anything about guns what semiautomatic and fully automatic mean. The illustrations are not mind reading, nor are they necessary to the decision, they are provided for clarity, so people that think fully automatic means gun shoot fast can follow along. Anyone that actually knows anything about firearms could tell you what full auto and semi auto are.
