Throughout oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned US Principal Deputy Solicitor …
source
Throughout oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned US Principal Deputy Solicitor …
source
for fucks sake, there is a trigger, a disconnector and a hammer. the trigger releases the hammer which is then pushed back from the round being fired and is caught by the disconnector, the trigger is still held to the rear and upon spring tension allowed to go forward, the disconnector disengages the hammer when the trigger moves forward, the hammer is caught by the trigger (that is called a reset) and the whole process continues. get some people who know what the fuck they are talking about, this shit is embarrassing.
They ruled that slavery was okay, at one time.
Why can't we take a step back and ask why a machine gun is allowed to be banned?
Machine guns shouldn't be illegal… Change my mind.
My concern is do the Supreme Court Justices know what a machine gun is? Are they the experts on this subject?
. It's a genuine question. How can we expect the correct judgment if they themselves can not identify and / or define the Machine Gun vs, a regular gun.
I was impressed by the intelligence of both arguments. Her probing hypothetical questions were replied to with excellent responses. The whole thing fell apart in the last ten seconds, though, when what came out was the legal equivalent of bovine derived organic fertilizer.
He just explained it in a way that invalidates the whole argument. First, its "we will typically say an action (that makes the gun fire)", then he says to validate "You dont actually have to even move your finger back. you can keep it stationary". OH, so you're saying that your finger STILL ACTUATES THE TRIGGER? Your finger is STILL making the hammer drop even if im not pulling my finger back? And if I removed my finger, it wouldn't go off, right?
So then your saying that the firearm's DISCONNECTOR activates, releases, the trigger/sear catches the hammer and then it requires another impingement on the trigger to fire? So then regardless if you move your finger to actuate the trigger OR the firearm moves against your finger, the trigger is still needing to be acted upon by your finger in some way?
Got it – so its not a machine gun.
The government has no legitimate authority to regulate machine guns. Let’s stop pretending that they do.
Yes, a little piece of plastic would activate the trigger after the trigger reset was released and the sear was moved allowing the hammer spring to advance the hammer to strike the firing pin…just like a semi-automatic single shot per single trigger pull firearm functions. What is this lawyer talking about???
the provisions exist in the D-of- Independence in dealing with illegitment gob-mints !
Your rights have already been taken away.. per the constitution, it says "arms"…. not gun or firearm… it says Arms!!!! Thus, a tank, a submarine, an F15 are all arms…
The bad guys still have full automatics. Still…it takes a gaggle of lawyers to misinterpret "Shall not be infringed."
Someone has never used a bump stock and it shows…. You can’t bump fire a rifle without first actually pulling the trigger
Trump helped get them banned.
Machine guns should have never been outlawed. It did nothing to the murder rates.
She's a typical Woke Joke
Why all the semantics? A group of people on the receiving end of a rapid-fire weapon doesn't give a shit if it's true automatic or if the rapid-firing is enabled through a bump stock.
So I think we are about to step away from the idea that one trigger cycle fwd and back firing one round keeps it from being a machine gun, and we are going to say that one action for multiple rounds is the new standard, and I think it is going to prevail, and its not wrong if you think regular individuals should not have machine guns. I for one don't really care if people have machine guns, if you are a criminal and want one its not difficult at all to make one, so why only stop good guys. If you ask me there is little real usefulness to them anyway, you generally can't carry enough ammo to feed them.
ACB – "whats a missile?"
ATF – "it has fur, 4 legs, and goes 'woof'. We gave ourselves power to destroy them on sight. For safety"
The real question should be. What part of the constitution gives the federal government authority to regulate firearms at all. The answer is None.
MAKE AMMOS FREE AGAIN.
If you set up a trip wire using a rifle with a bumpstock, it would only fire once, because it CAN NOT FIRE MULTIPLE SHOTS WITH ONE FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER. The definition of an automatic weapon is very clear and documented, and a bumpstock does not, not can it ever fit the same definition. The ATF knows this, because when reviewing the first bumpstock they saw that it never fit the legal definition.
Repeal the NFA
They said in a letter that a shoestring is a machine gun. Look it up.
Abolish the NFA! NOW!
Bump stacks do not change the rifle mechanism. If it's not a fully automatic rifle without the bump stock, it's not fully automatic with it. The bump stock is an accessory.
Because it's an accessory, it does not fall under Second Amendment protection. Congress has the authority to ban bump stocks.
The executive branch, however, does not have the authority to ban them. That is a legislative privilege, not an executive privilege. The ATF, falling under the executive branch, does not have the authority to create law. The president does not have the authority to create law. Banning bump stocks through executive order was a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers and a usurpation of the legislative authority of Congress.
That is why the ban should be struck down. SCOTUS cannot allow a for the usurpation of congressional authority.
The definition of machinegun is any weapon that fires more than one round for a single function of the trigger. The plain, statutory language of the law as it is written in USC 26 SS 5845b clearly defines machinegun as a function of the trigger mechanism, not the finger of the operator, the intent, or the rate of fire.
The bumpstock doesn't modify the operation of the trigger mechanism, which is still semi-automatic as it fires only one round for a single function of the trigger. The trigger mechanism must be reset between each round, and thus, is not a machinegun. We are attaining a higher rate of fire by attaching a device that uses the weapon's recoil to allow us to function the trigger faster, but as only one round is fired per function of the trigger, this still doesn't qualify as a machinegun because the definition of a machinegun relys on the function of the trigger, not some arbitrary rate of fire or intent.
At this point, if the ATF could arbitrarily change the rules to what makes a machine gun to anything that enables a gun to fire rapidly, then the ATF could literally consider fingers as part of a machine gun and we will have to cut off all of our fingers in order to comply.
These people are clueless bureaucrats. Do not let them fool you into thinking they are qualified, or even competent. This system needs a serious flush.
I despise when someone is making a firearm related argument and it's clear that they have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about. Having personally used a bump stock, I can tell you that nearly nothing he said was true or logical. Bump stocks are not easy to use and no, you cannot just replace your finger with a little plastic post. It would not work in the same way. Regardless, no matter how you shade the truth, the fact is that it is still one shot per trigger pull and if they want to change that rule they need to go back to congress to change the definition.
2A covers machine guns too. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a tyrant.
Am I the only one that sees where this is going? This isn’t going to stop at just devices that increase the rate of fire you would commonly think of ….bumpstocks, FRTS etc. this language is incredibly Dangerous. DO NOT BE FOOLED! What is going to stop them from coming after triggers with a lighter pull weight??? They also accelerate the rate of fire… think on this…think about every trigger having a mandated 8lb pull weight… no more competition shooting…. Or at least it would be a lot slower….this is very real and very scary…
Seems like a people problem.
Whether people understand or don't understand the mechanical workings of firearms, we can all pretty much understand the enumerated right, and federal law, the 2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Barrett is not qualified to be on the bench
LIKE a machine gu
Now thats just stupid
If it smells like shit it's still shit. If someone loses their sense of smell shit does not start smelling like roses.
This is a poor argument.. the stock does NOT move back and forth just the right amount every persons hands are different so the location of just the right amount is different for each person the stock does NOT allow the multi firing of rounds the person must intentionally with great skill force this action to happen. No different then a car going forward then being forced into reverse. This does NOT mean the car can operate in reverse while moving forward. This action must be forced and causes damage to instrument being forced. Any weapon with a bump stock that is forced to function in a multi round fire is damaged from the action. The longer the action the more severe the damage.
If you have to say to my understanding on any issue, you shouldn't be arguing legislation on that topic.
The bump stock maker's website says it plainly — it simulates automatic firing. To my mind anything that is initiating firing other than your monkey finger pulling the trigger makes it "automatic". It is using the action of recoil to fire the next round.
I'd be interested to see if any of these people have shot a machine gun, bump stock rifle, or even a traditional rifle.
The statute mentions the word finger exactly zero times. The wording is function of the trigger. Not sure when flexing a finger became a requirement. And the assertion that a bump stock requires no effort of an individual is patently false. It requires the extension of the weak hand forearm to initiate.
Jerry Miculek can shoot faster with a normal trigger than he can with a bump stock. Is he considered an ATF Violation?
Wasting so much time. Automatic weapons should be legal to law abiding citizens anyway. Just more government control you are paying for.
I don’t own such a stock…but it takes additional input from other hand to make it fire.
Do not give the government your permission.