Gun Control (Spray yourself down when entering and exiting the thread)

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

Yep. Don't depend on any revelatory self-awareness. This is an in-the-trenches battle for the existence of the entire regulatory framework that was implemented since at least the 60s, and if that is achieved, they will come for the New Deal.

We are already funding religious schools and have legal gerrymandering and vote suppression. The VRA is being gutted. The EPA is being restricted. Title IX is being used to reverse its intended function. The SC is using 18th—and 19th-century traditions as a guide for ruling on current laws and issues.

And here we have a few literal nerds needing to geek-splain why a fairly broad provision in law needs to be restricted as if it's a spec for the manufacture of a very narrow range of products.

Ecmaster76 · Jun 20, 2024

ramases said:
Thing is, the bump-stock ban is clearly a capability-based legislation.

It wasn't legislation at all; if it had been the ruling would have been made on a different basis

I feel like too much focus is being put on a rather weak pro-gun win (where SCOTUS practically invites congress to update the law and ban these) versus a moderate anti-executive win. The latter is arguably a good thing but reactions seem to be depending on who is the executive and whether or not you agree with the thing they were trying to do.

fitten · Jun 20, 2024

Ecmaster76 said:
I feel like too much focus is being put on a rather weak pro-gun win (where SCOTUS practically invites congress to update the law and ban these)

Yeah, but that will never happen. The Right will block any/all attempts at that and each attempt will be declared a 'win' for their 'side'. I think that's at least partially why compromised SCOTUS "invited" the attempts to update the law.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

Ecmaster76 said:
It wasn't legislation at all; if it had been the ruling would have been made on a different basis

I feel like too much focus is being put on a rather weak pro-gun win (where SCOTUS practically invites congress to update the law and ban these) versus a moderate anti-executive win. The latter is arguably a good thing but reactions seem to be depending on who is the executive and whether or not you agree with the thing they were trying to do.

Not at all.

It's a pro-judicial win. It will put all decisions into the hands of unelected judges with wide lanes to take any decision of importance to this SC for more of its bias.

This is an alarming decision. The pro-gun win is bad enough as it guts the laws against automatic weapons. It's also a strike at the heart of the professional administrative government.

One or two district judges and the 5th Circuit will make the law, and it will be rubber-stamped as the SC wills it.

Ecmaster76 · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
It's a pro-judicial win. It will put all decisions into the hands of unelected judges with wide lanes to take any decision of importance to this SC for more of its bias.

That would be much more true if the court had ruled instead that the law says something it doesn't. They didn't in this case at least

Other decisions where they invent new doctrines from whole cloth are much more prone to abuse.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

They did rule it did something it doesn't. We just have some people with blind spots accepting their bullshit.

The doctrines this SC abuses, like history and tradition, will continue to be used.

Tom Foolery · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
This is an alarming decision. The pro-gun win is bad enough as it guts the laws against automatic weapons.

This part can't be stressed enough. The current number of automatic weapons on the registry is just under 550k. This law makes it possible to convert over 50 million semi-automatic weapons to effectively full-auto weapons.

While I expect this ruling to stand, I think the challenges to the NFA of 1934 will continue to come. If the Republicans lose the upcoming presidential election, I suspect we will see the National Firearms Act of 1934 overturned completely.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

Even with just gun control in mind, this opens the door to an electric crank trigger mechanism and real investment into quality magazines that can hold hundreds of rounds. Add a tall bipod and you get an LMG.

Because the legislation does not specifically outlaw that combination of mod parts, it's legal. And it's startlingly stupid.

karolus · Jun 20, 2024

Especially in the era of social media and powerful search engines. The discussed modifications don't require any high ability beyond following directions and baseline manual dexterity.

Fingolfin · Jun 20, 2024

America. A machine gun (or machine gun like) in every home.

As the great philosopher Tiny Tim once said, "God bless us, every one!"

And not to worry, He'll sort everyone out when you get up there.

Pont · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
Because the legislation does not specifically outlaw that combination of mod parts, it's legal. And it's startlingly stupid.

I don't think it's that bad. The bump stock hack, whether you agree with the interpretation or not, is that a human finger was still actuating the trigger for 1 pull = 1 shot.

If you attach an electric crank, then you're just shifting "the trigger" to the button that operates the crank.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

But Thomas’ diagrams require that the trigger needs to be operated multiple times to shoot multiple shots and one shit per “operation”, so it’s legal. He does not allow for mechanical assistance to be illegal.

An electromechanical aid is legal, as per the dumb logic of the opinion. You are pretending they are ruling in good faith instead of ruling to an end, the destruction of regulation.

”Not that bad“ is a facile, willingly blind opinion based on pedantry linked to over-literalism.

GohanIYIan · Jun 20, 2024

How practical is some of this? I've never fired a machine gun, but my understanding is the limiting factor tends to be barrel heat. When media cites statistics like 500 or 800 round/min, could you actually put that many rounds through a typical semi automatic that quickly without the barrel melting or some other component failing?

I do think it makes sense to ban these, but I'm not sure how important it is priority-wise. We don't have dozens of examples of mass shootings with bump stocks. It's just the one guy in Vegas. And I suspect it's because it's very rare that firing faster with worse aim is the more practical option.

dragongoddess · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
Bullshit. It was a contrived analysis that was marked by an overly tight reading of the statute that needed specific diagrams to back it up because it was so full of shit. "Operation of the trigger" need not be interpreted that narrowly. That Thomas needed to do deep factual analysis as a cover for his shit indicates they know it's a garbage opinion.

The original Act and the 68 anti-circumvention provisions can easily cover banning bump stocks and any other devices that enable automatic file from SA weapons.

The ATF does not have the authority to rewrite the law which they did in this case. Two manufactures submitted their bumpstockj to the ATF for a determination as to if it was an unregulated to a part regulated under the NFA. On both occasions the ATF ruled that it was a part not required to be regulated under the NFA. Then the LV shooting happened and all of a sudden it was a regulated part.

As much as I detest this Court especially Justice Thomas I cannot say that the decision was wrong. Based upon the Law as written and how the bumpstockj operates the decision was correct. If you do not like the decision then pass an amendment to the NFA. To be honest you should be thankful that the Court didn't up and decide that the NFA was unconstitutional. They could have given how this Court seems to venture away from established precedent.

Technarch · Jun 20, 2024

GohanIYIan said:
How practical is some of this? I've never fired a machine gun, but my understanding is the limiting factor tends to be barrel heat. When media cites statistics like 500 or 800 round/min, could you actually put that many rounds through a typical semi automatic that quickly without the barrel melting or some other component failing?

It depends on the gun. It's not hard to fit a heavier barrel that can handle heat buildup better. But sustained automatic fire will cause the gun to fail at some point, anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand rounds in.

GohanIYIan said:
I do think it makes sense to ban these, but I'm not sure how important it is priority-wise. We don't have dozens of examples of mass shootings with bump stocks. It's just the one guy in Vegas. And I suspect it's because it's very rare that firing faster with worse aim is the more practical option.

Precisely. Bump stocks have no purpose other than indiscriminate slaughter.

dragongoddess · Jun 20, 2024

Wheels Of Confusion said:
So my understanding is that with a bump stock you can "pull the trigger" once and the bounce-back keeps jamming the trigger into your stationary finger. Sounds to me like a single pull of the trigger causes repeat fire to ensue.

and you are wrong. A bump stock requires more than just holding the trigger down. It requires additional input by the shooter and without that input it will not function.. I've included this very simple description as to how a bump stock operates.

Bump firing can be done on most semi-automatic firearms without the addition of any mechanism. Bump firing is done by releasing the grip of the gun and letting the firearm ride freely. The trigger finger is held stationary. Each time the gun completes the firing cycle, the shooter pushes the gun forward. The trigger contacts the trigger finger, and the cycle continues.

4 things to know about a 'bump stock'

A bump stock is a gun stock that uses the recoil action of a semi-automatic rifle to simulate fully automatic firing

www.police1.com

dragongoddess · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
Even with just gun control in mind, this opens the door to an electric crank trigger mechanism and real investment into quality magazines that can hold hundreds of rounds. Add a tall bipod and you get an LMG.

Because the legislation does not specifically outlaw that combination of mod parts, it's legal. And it's startlingly stupid.

If you think it's legal then build one but please put people here on the list so we can come visit you in prison.

Pont · Jun 20, 2024

GohanIYIan said:
I've never fired a machine gun, but my understanding is the limiting factor tends to be barrel heat.

There's a difference between a machinegun in the military and the legal definition of a machinegun as far as civilian ownership goes.

Almost all of the rifles carried by riflemen in the current military are machineguns, according to the civilian law, but they don't serve the machinegun role of sustained, suppressing fire. As you said, barrel heat. And the amount of ammunition the rifleman carries.

For civilian purposes, the legal definition of machinegun is intended to be anything that does fully automatic or burst fire. The original NFA was a response to criminals using Thompsons and BARs in high profile shootouts with law enforcement. The fights seldom last long enough for barrel heat to be a deciding factor.

Precisely. Bump stocks have no purpose other than indiscriminate slaughter.

Prior to the Las Vegas shooting, most gun enthusiasts would argue that they didn't even have that purpose. Instead, their purpose was to help you spend lots of money on ammo without hitting what you were aiming at.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

dragongoddess,

Please forgive me if I don't take your copypasta from that source seriously, given its support of Thin Blue Line and other right-wing garbage perspectives.

I think linking that crap indicates you have a warped point of view.

The definition of bump firing alone that you pasted right out of that article is incorrect.

Bump firing is done by applying controlled but loose back pressure on the rifle. The recoil kicks the rifle forward and actuates the trigger against the shooter's finger. A bump stock does two things. It kept the rifle aligned during bump firing, it makes it dead easy to do since the grip on the rifle is controlled by the stock, and it provides a resting area for the trigger finger to keep it in the optimal place so the trigger is operated.

Now that that's out of the way:

The ATF interpreted a statutory provision and wrote regulations, as is their purpose. Even better, they used discretion and regulated more loosely until the circumstances warranted it. I was not aware you supposed libertarians prefer maximalist regulation at all time. I'll make a note of that.
Please show me where trigger cranks are outlawed in the Act. I'll wait.

Technarch · Jun 20, 2024

papadage said:
But Thomas’ diagrams require that the trigger needs to be operated multiple times to shoot multiple shots and one shit per “operation”, so it’s legal. He does not allow for mechanical assistance to be illegal.

This is how we know the decision is pedantic bullshit--five diagrams and an animated gif, specific to the AR platform.

The specifics of the mechanical linkages between the shooter's finger aren't what matter, the human movement of finger or hand matters, as that is the intent that drives the firing of either one shot or (potentially) all of them. Thomas obviously intends to define 'function' so narrowly as to be almost meaningless, in order to enable trivial evasions of the regulations via bump stocks, cranks, or whatever other contraptions the gun nuts will come up with next.

Pont · Jun 20, 2024

Optimistically, it will lead to regulation based on fire rate, not "action".

We are well past the point where someone could make an automated trigger-puller. You could make a "bump shoulder" that doesn't attach to the gun that does the same as a bump stock.

I know you guys disagree with my and dragongodesses view of the technicalities of the law as-is, but I don't think this is that big of a loss nor would an opposite ruling have been that big of a win. The law needs to be updated, one way or another. This ruling increases the chance that it will.

fitten · Jun 20, 2024

Pont said:
The law needs to be updated, one way or another. This ruling increases the chance that it will.

Not a chance unless the Democrats get a supermajority in the Senate, House, and hold the Presidency. There is no way the GOP or the Trump Party is going to vote for any regulation or changes any time soon.

papadage · Jun 20, 2024

This line of argument also ignores that this is part of a series of cases intended to dismantle bureaucratic discretion and the authority of bureaucrats to reasonably interpret statutes as part of their remit.

It's a catastrophic loss that you and dragongodess are willingly blinding yourselves to by being too close to the topic and too pedantic.

This decision paves the way for the chipping away of over a half-century of progress across a host of issues. It points directly to Alito writing an opinion that CO2 is not a pollutant, as per this speech:

Justice Alito Declares “Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Pollutant” in a Candid, Confused Speech

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered a fascinating keynote speech at the Claremont Institute’s 2017 annual dinner on Saturday night. Alito, who...

slate.com

It's the same exact argument Thomas made.

Wheels Of Confusion · Jun 20, 2024

I'm just sickened and amused that a recoil-operated rapid fire system is "legal" because someone is holding their finger still, but the "mechanism" to do the rapid-fire bit is in the stock so it bounces the trigger into the finger, and this is considered a "well-reasoned and correct" legal argument.

Shavano · Jun 20, 2024

Fingolfin said:
America. A machine gun (or machine gun like) in every home.

As the great philosopher Tiny Tim once said, "God bless us, every one!"

And not to worry, He'll sort everyone out when you get up there.

Which will be soon, if we stay on this path.

Shavano · Jun 20, 2024

Technarch said:
This is how we know the decision is pedantic bullshit--five diagrams and an animated gif, specific to the AR platform.

The specifics of the mechanical linkages between the shooter's finger aren't what matter, the human movement of finger or hand matters, as that is the intent that drives the firing of either one shot or (potentially) all of them. Thomas obviously intends to define 'function' so narrowly as to be almost meaningless, in order to enable trivial evasions of the regulations via bump stocks, cranks, or whatever other contraptions the gun nuts will come up with next.

Right. And his purpose in doing so was to undermine the authority of the executive branch to carry out the laws passed by Congress, while pretending that it isn't simultaneously gamifying the process of rulemaking and changing the rules of the game to "heads I win, tails you lose."

And the secondary purpose was to illustrate for lower courts and for anybody that doesn't like a federal legislation how to create a technical distinction where one neither was intended or really existed, where the rules will not be allowed to apply, as long as you're on the Republican side.

Shavano · Jun 20, 2024

Pont said:
Optimistically, it will lead to regulation based on fire rate, not "action".

So you're coming around to my point of view.

Pont said:
We are well past the point where someone could make an automated trigger-puller. You could make a "bump shoulder" that doesn't attach to the gun that does the same as a bump stock.

I know you guys disagree with my and dragongodesses view of the technicalities of the law as-is, but I don't think this is that big of a loss nor would an opposite ruling have been that big of a win. The law needs to be updated, one way or another. This ruling increases the chance that it will.

But the damage to the system has already been done.

Pont · Jun 21, 2024

In some good news,

Supreme Court says domestic abusers can be temporarily disarmed

8-1, with Clarence Thomas furthering his apparent desire to have the courts force him to dissolve his marriage by repealing Loving, keep guns in the hands of domestic abusers, etc.

Roberts said:
Roberts, seeming to acknowledge a course correction, wrote that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber."

Shavano · Jun 22, 2024

Thomas seems to have gone over to judging strictly in accordance with right wing nutsack ideology. I wonder if he's still got most of his marbles.

Shavano · Jun 22, 2024

After gun control victory at Supreme Court, justices have other firearms cases in their sights

The latest ruling is likely the first of many in which gun rights advocates challenge restrictions. One of those cases could affect Hunter Biden's recent conviction.

www.nbcnews.com

this article puts a disturbing spin on how the Court is looking at these cases:

The court has several pending cases that it could act on in the next week that would give further signs of how eager the conservative majority is to continue with a long-term campaign to re-shape the scope of the right to bear arms.

Is that how courts are meant to work?

CPX · Jun 22, 2024

Shavano said:
Thomas seems to have gone over to judging strictly in accordance with right wing nutsack ideology. I wonder if he's still got most of his marbles.

At least a few people in the SCOTUS thread called this Thomas applying Bruen for what it actually says while Roberts is desperately trying to roll it back for now.

dragongoddess · Jun 24, 2024

papadage said:
dragongoddess,

Please forgive me if I don't take your copypasta from that source seriously, given its support of Thin Blue Line and other right-wing garbage perspectives.

I think linking that crap indicates you have a warped point of view.

The definition of bump firing alone that you pasted right out of that article is incorrect.

Bump firing is done by applying controlled but loose back pressure on the rifle. The recoil kicks the rifle forward and actuates the trigger against the shooter's finger. A bump stock does two things. It kept the rifle aligned during bump firing, it makes it dead easy to do since the grip on the rifle is controlled by the stock, and it provides a resting area for the trigger finger to keep it in the optimal place so the trigger is operated.

Now that that's out of the way:

The ATF interpreted a statutory provision and wrote regulations, as is their purpose. Even better, they used discretion and regulated more loosely until the circumstances warranted it. I was not aware you supposed libertarians prefer maximalist regulation at all time. I'll make a note of that.

Please show me where trigger cranks are outlawed in the Act. I'll wait.

My,My,My,Aren't you special.

I get bitched at because I do not provide a link in a response and when I do provide a link I still get bitched at because the link doesn't come from your echo chamber's approved sites to quote. I did look through a bunch of sites because I knew if I posted something from the manufacture or gun site you would flip out. So I found what I thought was a middle ground site (police description on a police site) and you flip out on that one also. Heaven forbid you get confronted with facts that you do not like.

The NY Times even posted that definition also plus this:

“The classification of these devices depends on whether they mechanically alter the function of the firearm to fire fully automatic,” Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a news conference after the Las Vegas shooting. “Bump-fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically.” This made them legal under federal law at the time.

Of course this is why the ATF authorized their sale as they did not meet the legal definition in the NFA to prohibit their sale but that does not matter to you does it. You want to complain and that is it. Heaven forbid you get up off your couch and get involved in the process to fix the problems you see.

I see you want to move away from the discussion which is a tactic of those who know they have lost. So just keep complaining on social media and here because that is the extent of your capabilities as per your statements.

Oh well it's bed time and I have cancer surgery tomorrow, the first of 4. They want to take 2-3 inches out of my right forearm to be sure they get all of the cancer.

Crolis · Jun 24, 2024

Not sure why you guys are so worried. Thomas clearly invited Congress to amend the law. How hard could that be? I’m sure he’s never discussed how hard it could be in his 4 million dollars worth of gifted trips with right wing nut jobs.

Lt_Storm · Jun 24, 2024

dragongoddess said:
“The classification of these devices depends on whether they mechanically alter the function of the firearm to fire fully automatic,” Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a news conference after the Las Vegas shooting. “Bump-fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically.” This made them legal under federal law at the time.

Given that the bump stock is a gun part which you have to install and has the effect of making the gun shoot rapidly, it both actually alters the gun (a gun with a bump stock is physically different from one without) and makes it fire automatically, so, no, this line of reasoning doesn't work, at all.

papadage · Jun 24, 2024

I also dispute that the website linked was using any standard definition. The person writing it is a firearm instructor, not a person who makes policy, and he writes on a website with a distinct right-wing lean. The site is a pro-cop site, not a police department. It features thin blue line content. The other quote, from an ATF agent, is meaningless as she was stating the law at the time right after the Las Vegas slaughter. Not a long time after that, the law was different.

dragongoddess said:
I see you want to move away from the discussion which is a tactic of those who know they have lost. So just keep complaining on social media and here because that is the extent of your capabilities as per your statements.

I'll leave this bit of trash posting alone, but you should know better since you had not replied to my post yet. Maybe you should check out of these discussions if you can't keep from tossing insults at other posters.

I hope you get through your surgery without any issues, and I hope you recover fully, quickly, and with as little pain as possible. Please feel. better.

dragongoddess · Tuesday at 1:41 AM

papadage said:
I also dispute that the website linked was using any standard definition. The person writing it is a firearm instructor, not a person who makes policy, and he writes on a website with a distinct right-wing lean. The site is a pro-cop site, not a police department. It features thin blue line content. The other quote, from an ATF agent, is meaningless as she was stating the law at the time right after the Las Vegas slaughter. Not a long time after that, the law was different.

I'll leave this bit of trash posting alone, but you should know better since you had not replied to my post yet. Maybe you should check out of these discussions if you can't keep from tossing insults at other posters.

I hope you get through your surgery without any issues, and I hope you recover fully, quickly, and with as little pain as possible. Please feel. better.

It really does not matter what site the definition comes from as the only definition you are will to accept is a flawed one that fits your political view on the subject at hand. I have no idea what your experience with firearms is but I'm guessing its zero. Now I'm quite familiar with SMG's, full auto rifles and machine-guns.

I have fired an AMERICAN 180 in 22LR. Liked the concept but did not like the drum mag as it was ammo sensitive with a tendency to jam. Now I was trained on the following:

M3 magazine fed 45 ACP. SMG
M16 magazine fed NATO 5.56. Rifle
M60 belt-fed 7.62mm. MG.
M240 belt-fed 7.62mm. MG.
M2 aka MA-Deuce belt-fed .50 caliber. MG.

Now the 6 full auto weapons I've listed operate with a single pull of the trigger. The bump stock requires a shelf to keep your finger in a certain position and forward pressure on the gun with your off hand to fire more than 1 round. No forward pressure on the gun from your off hand and a semiautomatic weapon equipped with a bump stock will only fire 1 round. In other words bump stocks simply do not meet the definition by law thus the SCOTUS ruled in the only way they could.

dragongoddess · Tuesday at 1:47 AM

Lt_Storm said:
Given that the bump stock is a gun part which you have to install and has the effect of making the gun shoot rapidly, it both actually alters the gun (a gun with a bump stock is physically different from one without) and makes it fire automatically, so, no, this line of reasoning doesn't work, at all.

But you are wrong.

The bump stock allows the receiver to recoil backward toward or into the fixed-position stock. That solves the problem of getting the firearm to move backward automatically and off the trigger finger. The forward pressure to repeat the process is the responsibility of the shooter. Simply put without that forward pressure properly applied a semi-auto rifle equipped with a bump stock will fire 1 round only. Just 1.

papadage · Tuesday at 6:36 AM

And you are not accepting a definition than one that lends to your argument. It’s a preference. Thomas used his amicus brief diagrams to load his definition even though they are not self-consistent, and you use your own slanted ones. Yours are not anointed by the pope.

Also, the forward pressure is not really different than putting a selective fire switch into a rapid fire mode. It’s a user selection for firming rapidly.

The fact that it’s not as clean as the switch is because a bump stock is a hack to circumvent the law that was blessed by a court with a fucked up approach to jurisprudence.

“History and Tradition” is a bullshit theory the court is already walking back because it leads to vile results, with Cargill being as bad as Rahimi. It’s just the court was embarrassed with by logical of Thomas’ crap in the latter. They fake scolded the Circuit to pretend that their legal test was not fucking stupid.

Shavano · Tuesday at 9:10 AM

papadage said:
And you are not accepting a definition than one that lends to your argument. It’s a preference. Thomas used his amicus brief diagrams to load his definition even though they are not self-consistent, and you use your own slanted ones. Yours are not anointed by the pope.

They kind of are, since the SCOTUS is functionally America's Pope.

papadage · Tuesday at 9:24 AM

Functionally, yes. But malicious decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson say otherwise.

Gun Control (Spray yourself down when entering and exiting the thread)

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis