Device that makes semiautomatic weapons function as automatic weapons. Bump stocks were banned under Trump. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/14/nx-s1-5006107/bump-stock-ban-gun-rights-machine-guns
The plain text of the existing law bans bump stocks. The SCOTUS chose to ignore that plain text and just legislate from the bench.
More than a statement about the right to bear arms, it seems like a very narrow latitude for agencies to interpret law in their rulemakings. Much of our administrative state is built on passing purposely expansive laws and then letting agencies get specific in rulemakings. Either scotus is trying to remake government or else capriciously knock out the Jenga pieces they most dislike. Either way, it's not a mission I want to give to an unelected body.
Some justices are clearly hostile to the administrative state but based on recent rulings It seems like the court is overall is capricious about its rulings on what regulations can and cannot be determined by regulators.
I don't really give a **** about bump stocks because they don't change the likelihood of getting hit by a bullet in America. What I do give a **** about is that absolutely bogus interpretation by the Supreme Court. A bump stock is a modification that turns a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one. To say otherwise is stupid, dishonest, or both.
Technically it does not. It makes it ACT like a machine gun in how rapid it can fire. I believe they should be illegal. They have absolutely no purpose except to spray rounds. They are highly inaccurate and hard to control, unlike an actual machine gun.
This will go down as the most controversial ruling of the Biden administration Remember kiddos, the Supreme court should act on law and not on ideology.
I prefer the law to be deliberate instead of reaching around for definition. Authoritarians do enough of this already.
The argument isn't around the definition of a machine gun. The argument is around the meaning/definition of "function" as it relates to the trigger.
I agree that the law is inadequately written if it allowed for this interpretation. Funny to me that people think dudes in the 18th century could write totally prescient laws about weapons 300+ years into the future when we have laws written in the last couple of decades that have already aged poorly.
Words are interpreted. They mean different things to different people. They meant different things yesterday as compared to today and compared to tomorrow. It's not math, so words written in law can essentially always be stretched to fit whatever one desires. Laws can be as dangerous or protective as the humans who interpret them or execute them. It's best to put forth good humans. Ethics, morals, and such things are important. Society have always faced trouble when they empower figures who are immoral, unethical, and malevolent in their speech and actions.
