vegetaSupreme Court rules gun 'bump stocks’ ban is unlawful
Flying Squid“The ban was imposed by the Trump administration”
But please, gun enthusiasts, tell me again about how Biden is going to take away all of your guns any day now whereas Trump is 2A all the way.
dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️Diaper Don, the “Take away their guns and worry about the due process later” guy? That Donald Trump, right?
Refresh my memory, was he talking about black people?
The comment was in this context:
Trump: ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’
President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights. “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at…
Donald Trump, the convicted felon who admits he still has a gun he has not surrendered as is required of convicted felons?
And his appointed justices upheld the law.
Ah, so that’s proof of Trump’s commitment to the Second Amendment- he violates it and then appoints justices to tell him so years later.
I can see why you’re a gun-owning Trump fan.
Trump is not a friend of the 2nd. Anyone who thinks he is, is delusional. He was a big city NYC democrat for basically his entire life.
Biden and the dems are not 2a friendly…but neither is any repub or trumpers. Both are true.
In that case, it’s weird that you’re telling that to me and not the Trump person who replied to me who suggested the opposite.
Shouldn’t you be replying to them?
Here, I’ll help: lemmy.world/comment/10631441
Let me know when you’ve replied to them about it. (I won’t be holding my breath.)
I read that as sarcasm for some reason
I see you have not responded to them about how Trump is not friendly toward the Second Amendment. Looks like I was correct to not have held my breath.
Again, maybe I’m reading it wrong but I thought their comment was sarcasm. The orange turnip is not a 2a advocate.
Maybe you should make sure they’re aware of it just in case you’re reading it wrong.
I doubt you will though. Please, do prove me incorrect on that.
bro look at the comment link you posted it is your comment link
That’s how posting links in Lemmy works. It shows you the context, one link above yours.
Here is the link to the post you just made. Feel free to open it in a new tab and see I’m right: lemmy.world/comment/10639095
Probably best to know how Lemmy works before making such a silly criticism.
This one’s just a dead link chief
Are you sure about that?
Apparently the way Lemmy’s link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link ‘to be helpful’, you only linked to your own comment. That’s not actually helpful and so it doesn’t come across in the best way.
And yet they knew what I was linking to because they, like me, know how Lemmy works. And you know they knew because they were talking about that post.
Oof. Nevermind, then. Tried to show you why being an asshole about it might have backfired, but keep being jaded!
Just FYI, I was responding to a libertarian regular who thinks there should essentially be no gun regulations.
Also, they’re a bigot.
They won’t say it out loud…even though it’s a massive part of it. The youth are staring at a shit load of immigrants from hard right religious countries yelling at how they want to turn their country into a Shira law shit hole…but no it’s the social media…
You might possibly be backing the wrong horse.
How the far-right gained traction with Europe's youth - Lemmy.World
From Germany and France to Poland and Spain, the far-right made inroads into the youth vote in key states in this EU election - as a generation that has grown up amid constant crises seeks new answers and follows politicians fluent in TikTok and YouTube. Young voters, traditionally perceived to be more left-wing, drove the wave of support for environmental parties at the last EU election in 2019, earning the nickname “Generation Greta” after the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. But following the pandemic, the Ukraine war and cost of living crisis, many shifted their support this year towards far-right populist parties that tapped into their concerns, fuelling their overall rise in the June 6-9 EU parliament poll. With the leaders of Europe’s often upstart ethno-nationalist, anti-establishment movements mastering new social media better than their mainstream counterparts, they are earning cachet as a subversive counterculture among some young people. They appeal in particular to young men who feel left behind and censored by an increasingly “woke” mainstream, analysts say.
He can go kick rocks. I’m trying to help you.
From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to “go respond to this guy instead”, but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I’m trying to help prevent in the future.
I’m not sure how else to link to someone’s post than to do it the only way Lemmy allows you to do it.
spyd3rRich people want to take away the ability of us poor commoners to resist their oppression and defend ourselves.
Yup, we all fight eaxh other for table scraps while they eat the full meal. Our fight shouldn’t be us vs each other. It should be us vs them.
If memory serves, the Obama administration (the one far right was screaming for 8 years was going to take away all the guns) specifically looked at bump stocks and said they were legal.
Trump freaked out at the Las Vegas shooting and pushed the ban ASAP.
"Take away their guns and worry about the due process later”
Donald Trump.
Quoting that anti-constitution anti-gun president got me banned from a libertarian subreddit back in the day. I made it very clear I was against his position on blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment. I guess they were just extremely triggered by the quote?
LizThere’s quite a lot of people out there who don’t actually have principles, they just have things they like and a team to root for.
Clarence wants his cronies equipped.
Trump is no longer the only president to actually do something about guns in the last 20 years.
jordanlundHey now, Obama “did something”… he expanded gun rights. :)
thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3…
“One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan’s policy that required guns to be locked in glove compartments of trunks of cars that enter national parks.
Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
I missed that part about bump stocks in the constitution.
e: Could someone please point it out for me?
FirstCircleIt’s right there in the paragraph about nuclear weapons.
I suppose the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless prohibited by law, you have the power to do anything you like. As it probably says in the article, this needs to be law, not ATF opinion.
FireTowerI think article 1 section 1 sums it up best
That wasn’t remotely the basis of the ruling. It was essentially ruled that they don’t meet the definition of a machine gun in the law, which limits what the ATF can do. It was mentioned that congress can amend the law and ban them. They just haven’t.
Right. And because Congress hasn’t prohibited them, they’re fair game.
I was talking more about the general principle of what is allowed versus prohibited than this specific case, though.
My point is, they did not rule a ban unconstitutional, since they asked where it was in the constitution.
I read it as asking where in the Constitution there is a right to bump stocks. Did you read as asking where the ban is?
And there is no constitutional right to bump stocks. They just ruled there is no current law against it. If there was a constitutional right to them, you couldn’t ban them even with a law.
I didn’t say he was asking where the ban is.
XanthraxBumpstocks are oldshit in comparison to “super safeties.” They push the trigger forward after you shoot. So you just squeeze, and you get quick individual trigger pulls at close to an automatic rate. It’s also easier to aim.
Thanks stranger! I love Hoffman Tactical.
He said it, not me.
Hellfire triggers too…
Bump stocks are largely irrelevant since the invention of Hellfire Triggers:
It’s essentially a “bent piece of metal”. I don’t see how you could control that.
Which can even be applied to pistols:
ATF approved Hellfire trigger does the same thing as the Rare Breed FRT-15/Tac-Con 3mr
Which can even be applied to pistols: youtu.be/teoGHEPqd04
That video is talking about auto-sears which are illegal.
This piece of plastic can turn almost any gun into a machine gun
The ban on bump stocks was implemented using the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act of 1986. Which was signed into law by Reagan (funny how a failed assassination will change things).
The text at issue is
SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. (a) Section 58450)) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out “any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” and inserting in lieu thereof “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,”
IMO the majority in this decision is choosing to blatantly ignore the text of the act which was clearly chosen to future-proof for any advancement which would result in an effortless high rate of fire such as bump stock and super safety. Instead they are insisting that Congress must amend the law to include specific parts which of course is a losing battle as there will always be a new part that achieves an effortless high rate of fire.
Now where one could argue that this ruling is correct is the accepted definition of a machinegun requires a single trigger action.
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
Personally I think the laws should be amended to define weapons and munitions by their result (high or continuous rate of fire) instead of their form or function. As it stands, someone could create a weapon that simply fires continuously but does not resemble a gun in any other way. Would such a weapon be a machinegun if it doesn’t even have a trigger?
I think the dissenting opinion was more inline with the intent of FOPA.
They don’t need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn’t. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
I don’t think anyone is going to build a triggerless pseudo-machine gun. You could build one where, when you close the action, it fires until it’s out of ammo, but that’s not very controllable. See also: slamfire.
They don’t need to ban specific parts, and in fact they shouldn’t. They could ban anything designed to accelerate rate of fire.
That’s exactly what they should do. But SCOTUS seems to think that the bump stock cannot be banned because there is no law about bump stocks specifically.
BeardedBlazeBump stock still requires single function of the trigger. Might want to research how it actually works.
Isn’t it that the trigger is squeezed once and the recoil causes the crock to bounce back which results in another trigger action? Even though there is only one action by the shooter, it would seem to be multiple trigger actions.
Correct. I mean, the thing was specifically designed to get high fire rates while technically keeping guns semi auto. That’s why legislation is an arms race. You ban certain things, gun manufacturers design around it.
The entire logic of the Court’s opinion rests on the fact that bump stocks still use a seperate trigger action per shot. They just cause the trigger to automatically trigger against a stationary finger instead of the shooter needing to manually actuate their trigger finger.
Is this an obtusely litteral reading of a law that was clearly intended to be more broadly interpreted? Probably. But it is a reading with a majority support on the court, so we are stuck with it until congress amends the law.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I contend that what a bump stock does is make the trigger the entire front half of the gun and your finger is merely a passive mechanical part. Like, you could replace your finger with a bent fork glued onto the bump stock and it would still function as intended. Your finger becomes the auto-sear, the entire front half of the rifle is the trigger.
I’m all for gun control, though, I feel like banning bump stocks won’t do much. Aren’t they incredibly easy to make?
Yea, your belt loop makes a great one.