Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,054
Likes
20,357
Feedback: 125 / 0 / 0
Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill’s lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) bump stock ban went to the Supreme Court of the United States on Wednesday.


In November 2023, Cargill told Breitbart News his goal was to stop federal agencies from being weaponized against the American people.

Continues...
 
Lawyer doesn't know about lightning links and is getting tripped up in that the link causes more than one round to fire with ONE function of the trigger
 
I know this case isn’t about machine guns directly, but the oral arguments here are a clear indication that we will never get new machine guns in civilian hands again. At least not with the current composition of SCOTUS.
 
He should have been able to shut down the equity hire with a simple statement -
Your honor, the item to which you are referring allows a firearm to fire multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger.
It's mechanism of action is completely different.

Current discussion on recoil should be shut down as the recoil energy is measured in single digit pounds and therefore recoil is easily overcome and shooter must use skill and technique to achieve bump fire
 
I know this case isn’t about machine guns directly, but the oral arguments here are a clear indication that we will never get new machine guns in civilian hands again. At least not with the current composition of SCOTUS.
It's only the diversity hires asking questions so we need to wait to see what the 5 conservatives say
 
he just did
In a roundabout manner but yes he did

His assertion that recoil is strong enough to overcome all but the strongest shooter is a serious error - He should have been trained and experienced with a bump stock so that he could articulate that rapid fire simulating automatic fire is only achievable with training and practice therefore the trigger activation is simply moving from one hand to the other and still requires significant skill and technique to achieve high rates of fire.

And he just F'cked us in Mass with the new bill's text
 
The chemical reaction argument is non-sequitur.
A bump stock moves the triggering function from a moving finger actuating the trigger to the firearm moving the trigger against a static finger - IE the trigger function becomes the movement of the receiver controlled by the non-trigger hand.
 
It's only the diversity hires asking questions so we need to wait to see what the 5 conservatives say
You missed the beginning where Justice Gorsuch said something along the lines of “I can understand why these devices should be banned…” before getting into why they can’t. Just goes to show you how they feel about machine guns being dangerous and unusual weapons not protected by 2A.
 
You missed the beginning where Justice Gorsuch said something along the lines of “I can understand why these devices should be banned…” before getting into why they can’t. Just goes to show you how they feel about machine guns being dangerous and unusual weapons not protected by 2A.
MGs et al are only unusual because the government impermissibly infringed on the 2nd amendment in the first place.
 
MGs et al are only unusual because the government impermissibly infringed on the 2nd amendment in the first place.

Absolutely and I didn't enjoy Scalia's example of M16's being dangerous and unusual firearms, because it was the NFA that ensured they were unusual, not to mention how many asshats, including from the judiciary, used it as an excuse for supporting bans on AR-15 title 1 firearms
 
Last edited:
I've lost all confidence in the Supreme Court, a bunch of compromised partisans.
Yup, all these people in MA waiting for this new gun control bill to get passed so they can take it up to SCOTUS are SOL. If SCOTUS was actually pro 2A they would have already stopped individual states from enacting their own AWB, but they haven't. I hate to piss in anybody's Cheerios, but there's nothing at the top of that hill. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats, the government is moving towards civilian disarmament. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the DEM's are saying the quiet part out loud.
 
Yup, all these people in MA waiting for this new gun control bill to get passed so they can take it up to SCOTUS are SOL. If SCOTUS was actually pro 2A they would have already stopped individual states from enacting their own AWB, but they haven't. I hate to piss in anybody's Cheerios, but there's nothing at the top of that hill. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats, the government is moving towards civilian disarmament. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the DEM's are saying the quiet part out loud.
28 going on 29 states are now constitutional carry. While you're kinda right, the trend in the last 10yrs is heavily on our side. This case is about the ATF making laws, and any BS about machine guns should be moot because this case isn't about that. I can't watch right now, but it sounds like a poor choice of lawyers for the argument.
 
Seems to me that this case has some overlap with the Chevron Doctrine case that was argued in January prior to this one. If the court rules that Chevron Doctrine is not valid then shouldn't they decide that the ATF cannot outlaw bump stocks, only congress can do that regardless of its function?
 
That was awful. The lawyer for the client was terrible and if I'm in the jug, he's not getting a call. Most of the argument was "function of the trigger vs. a trigger is not a function crap" without actually getting into how the firing mechanisms differ in plain simple English of a semi auto trigger resetting vs. full auto flow.
 
Seems to me that this case has some overlap with the Chevron Doctrine case that was argued in January prior to this one. If the court rules that Chevron Doctrine is not valid then shouldn't they decide that the ATF cannot outlaw bump stocks, only congress can do that regardless of its function?
I missed sections of the arguments - will need to listen in full later

There seemed to be a few discussions going on
1 - The court believes that bump stocks are NFA by the intent of the law
2 - The court isn't certain that point 1 can be read into the statutory language
3 - Congress needs to update the NFA to cover all "un-good" weapons in SCOTUS approved language so they can rubber stamp

The start and end should have been that bump stocks don't fit the language of the law as understood at enactment therefore are legal until Congress acts to update NFA language to cover all attachments, devices or advances that assist higher rates of trigger activation
 
That was awful. The lawyer for the client was terrible and if I'm in the jug, he's not getting a call. Most of the argument was "function of the trigger vs. a trigger is not a function crap" without actually getting into how the firing mechanisms differ in plain simple English of a semi auto trigger resetting vs. full auto flow.
Remember we are not his audience - the court is and most of them have less knowledge than your average cop.
 
Seems to me that this case has some overlap with the Chevron Doctrine case that was argued in January prior to this one. If the court rules that Chevron Doctrine is not valid then shouldn't they decide that the ATF cannot outlaw bump stocks, only congress can do that regardless of its function?
Sure there is slight overlap, but overall Chevron is not implicated in this case, at least not directly. The ATF has specifically chosen not to cite Chevron in support of this bump stock ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom