-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to let civilians own automatic weapons
- Thread starter fred6052000
- Start date
Do you really think someone with enough political pull and money will call people because his 3 or 4 machine guns will go down in value?
I feel like when someone is at a point that can call people to influence this type of stuff, the cost of the machinegun is insignificant and that person probably has other stuff, like businesses, that would benefit from a favor.
No, if they were planning on doing that then they wouldn’t have already announced they were hearing the case and scheduled oral arguments for later this month. They would have waited until after LBE v. Raimondo was decided and then GVR’d the Garland v. Cargill case, just like they did with all of their 2A cases post-Bruen. Heck, they’re even doing that this term with the Range/Rahimi cases. Range is probably going to be GVR’d in light of Rahimi.
No, what SCOTUS will do is overturn Chevron and decide the bump stock issue separately, focusing on the technical definition of machine gun and the rule of lenity.
This case has nothing to do with Hughes, nor would it open up the machine gun registry. This isn’t even about machine guns at all. This is about solely bump stocks and whether or not they meet the technical definition of a machine gun (they don’t), also whether or not the ATF has the authority to ban them without intervention from Congress (they don’t). The NFA is not implicated in this lawsuit whatsoever.
Alright, guess I'll buy the PVC tubes and Cosmoline before the prices skyrocket. Good thing so many companies unveiled lever actions and revolvers at SHOT last month because that's all that's going to be legal next year.
This. No one really cares about bump stocks themselves. The core issue of this case is that if bump stocks needs to be banned, then Congress needs to do it. The ATF can’t just do it themselves. The bump stock ban paved the way for them to pull all of the other gun control they’re doing today with pistol braces, FRTs, frames/receivers, etc.
Taipan01
NES Member
This is the true center. It's not what many think the target is, it's gutting not only the ATF but other administrative, not legislation, interpretations of laws by expansion thru Chevron deference. It's this doctrine that is going on trial.
This is literally the only thread on NES where you can get away with saying something like that.
So..... I guess we won't be seeing you sporting a spiffy new pair of Trump golden sneakers anytime soon?
Lank
NES Member
So congress can infringe on RKBA?
Lank
NES Member
Careful, don't give the libtards ideas
Says you. Nothing puts a warm grin on your face like a binary fed 22 rimfire braced pistol suppressed.
I never said that. No doubt that if Congress had ended up passing a bump stock ban, that piece of legislation would've also been subject to litigation on 2A grounds. However, the fact of the matter is Congress didn’t do its job and decided to let the ATF do the dirty work for them.
Lank
NES Member
Yes...wasn't trying to provoke.
It seems that if Chevron Deference were to go away the RKBA community will live more comfortably.
Lank
NES Member
It also is indisputable that a central governments main objective is to preserve, maintain and increase its power. After all central governments are a necessary evil.
If Chevron Deference were to go away, which it must, two important facts should become apparent quickly. The first is that the central planning political class in DC would immediately become incapable of micromanaging us with the current apportionment. The second is that the first outcome proves that centralized rule always fails and that the majority is best left alone
Mesatchornug
NES Member
Are you saying you'd prefer binary over automatic, all else equal?
This case isn’t really dealing with Chevron, at least not directly. There are already 2 other SCOTUS cases dealing with Chevron this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo & Relentless v. Dept. of Commerce). The 5th Circuit in Cargill struck down the bump stock ban focusing more on the technical definition of machine gun as well as the rule of lenity, which states that ambiguous laws with criminal implications should be interpreted in the way most favorable to the private citizen instead of the government.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,739
- Likes
- 2,527
Trump ordered the Justice Dept. to come up with the rule so that GOP Congresscritters wouldn’t have to go on record on a lose-lose issue for them.
Trump Moves to Regulate ‘Bump Stock’ Devices (Published 2018)
The president asked the Justice Department to propose regulations that would ban “bump stocks,” which can convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic weapon.
Whatever the reasoning, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still Congress’ responsibility to pass these sorts of regulations and not executive branch agencies like the ATF.Trump ordered the Justice Dept. to come up with the rule so that GOP Congresscritters wouldn’t have to go on record on a lose-lose issue for them.
Trump Moves to Regulate ‘Bump Stock’ Devices (Published 2018)
The president asked the Justice Department to propose regulations that would ban “bump stocks,” which can convert a semiautomatic gun into an automatic weapon.www.nytimes.com
The reasoning is very important as most/nearly all "pro 2a" people continue to pretend Trump wasn't involved in this.
These same people also continue to have problems remembering when Trump wanted to "look into" completely banning suppressors after that VA office shooting.
The bump stock ban is a pretty big deal. And the people involved in it need to be tar and feathered. Operation Warp Speed Professor Trump included.
Trump's mistake, like usual, was he listened to people he shouldn't have because they had ulterior motives.
People thinking Trump wanted to give the terrible ATF more power because he is an anti are wrong.
People thinking Trump wanted to give the terrible ATF more power because he is an anti are wrong.
Don't forget the NRA. People need to be reminded of their role in the bump stock mess too.
Joint Statement
NRA's Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Issue Joint Statement
(FAIRFAX, VA) - The National Rifle Association today issued the following statement:
"In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence."
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,269
- Likes
- 33,194
On this? No. You're F'd.
If they said that somehow these are "in common use" then you've got an argument and in a few years you might get it through the courts to get a bumpstock.
I'd rather just hold out for the NFA to be dramatically modified or eliminated and then have the SC carry that to the states as well in the decision. (Although, look at what they did with Bruen so far.)
Garys
NES Member
I took my Texas LTC class this morning. Which has nothing to do with the case except that the lead instructor was Michael Cargill. There wasn't much time to talk but I did thank him even though I have no interest in buying one. The issue is much bigger than than bump stocks.
KBCraig
NES Member
I was irritated that the justices kept saying "banned", and I didn't hear anyone correct them on that.
There are no federal gun bans. There are some bans on importation of non-sporting arms (by ATF definition). The post-1986 "ban" doesn't ban automatics, it just restricts them to government agencies or SOTs. Since they declared bump stocks to be "machine guns", they fall into the post-'86 category, and SOTs can still possess and transfer them among themselves or to government agencies.
There are no federal gun bans. There are some bans on importation of non-sporting arms (by ATF definition). The post-1986 "ban" doesn't ban automatics, it just restricts them to government agencies or SOTs. Since they declared bump stocks to be "machine guns", they fall into the post-'86 category, and SOTs can still possess and transfer them among themselves or to government agencies.
After hearing oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, it appears the answer to this question according to SCOTUS is yes. It was made abundantly clear that a majority of the justices were perfectly content with bump stocks being banned. The issue they had is the way the were banned, which is the whole point of this case. If bump stocks need to be banned, Congress has to do it. Not the ATF.
