jeffwRoger Stone Caught on Tape Discussing Trump’s Plan to Challenge 2024 Election
slickgoatThe Republicans get away with so much despicable action and each time the Dems get pants by the audacity of the attempt. That’s how we are here now.
The conservatives will try absolutely anything, up to and including armed insurrection. Now with AR15s, and probably with bumpstocks fitted.
Don’t think that it could never happen. The MAGA element love being underestimated.
So, I work in a gun store(part time), if you think bump stocks are unethical, look up(or don’t) a binary trigger. Those, as far as I know, have never been banned, and are far more effective when it comes to trying to attempt to increase fire rate.
To be honest, a lot of gun legislation is really ineffective. The amount of loopholes etc, are kinda insane. If we’re going to talk about gun legislation, it needs to be a helluva lot more than a part ban on “assault style” firearms, until then, it’s just pandering for votes imo.
(Please don’t assume I am a crazy arsenal wielding person. I actually don’t own any firearms at this moment despite my part time occupation.)
I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
And I don’t believe that you are a gun but at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.
However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:
The term “machine gun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning themgot struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the former has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.
If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.
If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation. Those powers extend only so far as the passed legislation delegates them and no further. Even in cases where it seems like it would be useful, or the name of the agency suggests it would be something in their sphere of influence.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation.
Nitpick: rule making power does belong to executive agencies (at least until this SCOTUS decides to reverse Chevron deference). Law-making power resides solely with Congress.
What this means, as you suggest, is that Congress sets up statutory bounds within law, then the responsible executive agencies create rules interpreting them and defining how they’ll be enforced. Where cases like this one go wrong is when the agency oversteps the bounds of the law as passed by Congress. At that point, the agency has engaged in creating new law rather than rules, which is why the courts swat them down.
I agree with your overall gist, just feel that’s an important distinction to understand the situation.