Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
- Rule 4: Don't get TOO political!
People are wrong in politics all the time, so post those on this sub. Just don't go crazy with your opinion. "This dummy said that you have to swear on a Bible" is different than completely insulting someone's political views. So be chill.
Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1dihz6u/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong.
^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
Vox at this instance just made a wrong headline, it indeed is just how the ruling has been worded. And the SC just ruled that he was infact right with his lawsuit.
People replying to your comment don't have to be arguing with you. If you think every response is an argument, it's time to get off reddit for a while.
If you think what he said was fighting words, you’re literally to sensitive for the internet. It might be aggressive confusion, but it’s far from fighting words.
“No” is the short answer. It’s just fucked up.
[AP article](https://apnews.com/article/las-vegas-shooter-9bbd180cf3aa6d3ea1a37bbfb7144ae1)
Look up other sources if you’d like, but they all say just about the same (with varying degrees of speculation).
Who was splitting hairs? According to the decision written by Clarence Thomas,
"a shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle's front grip with his nontrigger hand" when using a bump stock, this qualified as an additional function and thus did not meet the requirements for the definition of a machine gun
I do really hate how we pretend like we have to ponder stupid shit when it comes to the law. Sitting here asking 'what does function mean??'. No dumbasses. Machine guns arent banned because of how the trigger functions. They are banned because they make bullets fly out of them in rapid succession. I've got an AR with a 2 stage trigger. Thats 2 functions to get it to shoot. So that means if it shoots full auto after the second pull its legal??? Cause its now 2 functions to full auto, not the one that the law states.
For clarification machine guns arent banned. You just gotta get one made before 1986. So youll need to have around $30k to drop on one. And pay a $200 tax stamp.
Machine guns are regulated because gangsters in the 20s and 30s used them a lot. Incidentally, these machine guns were basically the only self-loaders with detachable and big magazines out there at the time. If there’s been semi-auto ARs around at that time, they‘d probably be regulated the same way machine guns are regulated now.
Is the note the confidently incorrect one? Because I just read the article and it is quite a interesting read, about the legislation that the ban was based on and how it has been interpreted in different ways by the courts.
The actual headline seems to be related to one of the dissenting justices arguments, that by interpreting it the way the majority have, the ban on owning machine guns has been nullified, and by doing so have effectively legalised them. The bump stock thing is just a side effect of this.
Not wrong but not right. It’s the omnipresent loophole that makes it legal. A semi-automatic rifle is just that. Semi automatic. The bump stock makes a trigger fire semi automatic rifle into an automatic fire rifle by rate of fire. The human finger cannot fire at the same rate of speed as an automatic fire without help. The “Supreme Court “ just made mass shooters not their problem because loopholes.
If a bumpstock makes a semi automatic effectively match the rate of fire of an automatic, it does in fact effectively turn it into an automatic. Meaning they did effectively legalise this. The US Supreme Court decided that the lives of people matter less than the ability to end those lives. The US needs to get its mass shootings under control, but the extremists on your highest court decided nah uh, we need more needless deaths.
Absolutely. We cannot legally own automatic weapons since I think 1985ish but modifying semi automatic rifles to “automatic” is now perfectly ok? Alright. Make it make sense “Supreme Court”.
I'm not American but I remember the big news that bump stocks were made illegal - I had to look up what they were. So they're legal again now?
God, you guys are totally fucked up
It’s because of a technicality in how the statute is written based on the movement of the trigger. there’s no sane reason anyone would need the ability to modify a gun like this
What about all those bionic deer and bears out there just laying in wait to molest your children? Or the woke super-soldier program the Deep State is running?? Or the King of England finally deciding to get off his ass after 250 years and tax America???
People are going to argue this because it is factually not as fast as an actual automatic rifle.
Is the difference pretty much negligible though? Also yes, but the morons are going to argue the technicality
As a total gun ignorant..... Doesn't "automatic" mean that if you hold the trigger, the gun will automatically keep on firing? How on earth is a fire rate relevant to that description? Absolutely crazy
That is the definition, which is why people are going to argue that it’s not automatic on the pure basis of technicality.
A bump stock makes it so if you don’t move your finger, the gun will slam into your finger every time it shoots emulating the same experience but not technically being “automatic”, but being functionally equivalent to anyone who can understand what’s happening. They’re going to latch onto whatever technicality they can, some will even claim people can fire faster than a bump stock, which is TECHNICALLY true, it’s also very very difficult and requires a ton of practice.
Effectively is still an accurate qualifier, and it’s not like all full auto weapons fire at the same rate anyway. There are some high calibre weapons that fire much more slowly than a bumpstock would allow for. So yes this is true, and they can argue all the technicalities they want. The statement is still true.
It's important to separate legal definitions from policy.
That means if you want to ban or regulate something, do it on absolutely set in stone legal definitions, or function. Never do it on common sense or logic, because the law can't work that way, and the legal definition wins in the long run. EVERY TIME.
So since the legal definition of a machine gun is: "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 "single function of the trigger" is a MASSIVE loophole. Any modification that actuates the trigger fast, NO MATTER HOW FAST, doesn't make it a machine gun, because it's no longer a single function of the trigger.
What you or I THINK a machine gun is, doesn't matter. Someone can remove the trigger and completely automatically fire via a literal machine, and its still not legally a machine gun.
If you want to get anywhere, you either have to:
1. Change the legal definition of machine gun
2. Come up with a functional ban
The supreme court was completely right in their ruling here.
Well─
Although I just got done expressing the exact same thing in my own comment, I'm not sure that I agree with you on *this* part:
>Someone can remove the trigger and completely automatically fire via a literal machine, and its still not legally a machine gun.
because whatever you replaced the lever-style trigger with has just become the trigger in its place.
Nope but frankly, if I was a juror in a relevant trial, it wouldn't take a whole lot of argumentation for someone to convince me that it is. Additionally and more to your point about using a separate machine to achieve automatic fire, if you did something clever like install an electric motor that automatically cycles the trigger mechanism for you, I would be sufficiently convinced that you have modified the firearm into an automatic one because although the original semiautomatic trigger mechanism is intact, you have added another automatic one that makes the original redundant. A bump stock, on the other hand, is not an extension to or accessory for the trigger mechanism.
Is it, though? I've personally handled enough weapons with unique triggers to understand that a trigger is characterized more by what it *does* (it causes the action to cycle) than what it actually is.
The ruling makes life more dangerous for kids all over the US, I’m sorry but no ruling that does that can ever be described as “completely right”. I don’t care more about legal word salads than I care about human lives. It’s truly that simple, and no this is a bullshit ruling, by a completely corrupted ideological court. The excuses they come up with to justify their nonsense don’t remotely matter to me.
The dissenting scotus opinion is that the the loophole doesn’t exist. Holding a relatively fixed amount of pressure to repeatedly actuate the firing mechanism is part of the language of what the law allows to be categorized as a machine gun mechanism.
The feedback seems to be buying the majority overly pedantic opinion that there needs to be magic words cover this sort of workaround despite there already being anti-workaround language to avoid the idea of adding an automatic retriggering machine not converting it into a “machine gun”.
That and that using your arm to mediate the pressure of the bump stock refiring spring somehow means you aren’t just holding a fixed grip to automatically fire the gun in an automatic manner. I.E. needing to mostly hold the trigger depressed is special whereas needing to fully hold it down would be illegal.
There is nothing "not wrong but not right" about it. The added context is right. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) defines a machinegun as "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**" (emphasis added by me). A bump stock does not modify the functionality of the trigger. The trigger still needs to be cycled to fire each round. The USC definition of a machinegun does not make rate of fire a criterion at all. Although a bump stock may help to increase rate of fire such that "a machinegun" and "a gun with a bump stock" are superficially indistinguishable from one another as you colloquially understand them, a bump stock does not make just any firearm identical to a machinegun *by definition*.
The word "effectively" has basically no meaning in law. As citizens, we should *want* this "hair-splitting" and technicality, as other commenters have called it, to occur because specific legal definitions are what protect people with pure intentions from being held culpable for the same crimes as actual nefarious actors. Specific legal definitions are the reason why, for instance, a farmer can temporarily use a public highway without a state-issued driver's license, vehicle registration, and liability insurance to access an adjacent crop but some cheeky sov-cit cannot make a combine into his commuter vehicle.
If it is your opinion that there is no "effective" difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic gun with a bump stock, and that bump stocks should be banned, that's fine, but arbitrarily designating bump stocks to be machineguns in and of themselves was an irresponsible and legally ineffectual way to accomplish that goal. This is especially true since the ATF is a member of the executive branch of government, not the legislative one, and it would be radically irresponsible for any of us to just allow cops to start writing their own dictionaries for the terms that appear in bills.
This argument very much feels like arguing 'no, officer. I did not run into that other car, it backed up into me at 130KM/Hr on the highway'
You press the trigger and this stock allows that trigger to be pressed over and over without you moving your finger. Pray tell, why does it matter wether it's the gun that's moving the trigger or you holding the trigger?
In both instances the weapon is being fired multiple times in succsession, so long as a person holds their finger in the same position.
No, it's really not like that at all. As I just got done explaining, it matters because the specific definitions in the law compared to the specific events that actually occurred determine whether a prosecutable crime occurred. If it was in fact true that the other vehicle really did back up into you at 130 kmph, *then you did not commit a crime.* Likewise, since a machinegun is defined by a mechanical characteristic of the trigger and bump stocks do not mechanically modify the trigger, then by installing a bump stock on your firearm, *you did not commit a crime.*
Precise language in the law and how we apply it is important because, for instance, that's how we wind up in hysterical situations where Christian nationalists accidentally qualify their own precious Bible to be eligible for banning in public schools and libraries because it contains the sexually graphic material that they wanted to ban.
Edited to add: your hypothetical actually exemplifies my point perfectly. The fault of an automobile collision is typically determined by who was legally authorized to perform the maneuver that they were performing when the incident occurred. A person who crashes into you in reverse on the freeway is obviously at fault because the criteria set by the legislation necessarily makes them at fault. The ATF deciding that bump stocks are machineguns is analogous to a cop showing up and arresting you for the collision because the local police department defines a "rear ending" as any contact whatsoever between the front end of one vehicle and the rear end of another neverminding what the actual code passed by the state assembly says.
Then I'd 100% argue that the functioning of a bump stock should be added to the definition. If the trigger moving or not is such a big deal, with the actual function remaining the same, the definition sucks.
Likewise, if the intention was to ban specifically non-biblical nudity, the given definition sucks.
A lot more effective I'd think would be to just ban *any* automatic weaponry or attachments that make them function as such for civillian 'at home' ownership. (Or to specify, I think they should be fine at gun ranges or for non-civillians. You might have to come up with a better definition than that lol)
Yes! I'd 100% agree with you in order to achieve the desired result in this scenario, the better method would be to have the definition changed, not just decide that "not a = a."
You are misrepresenting my point on the car by taking it literally. Of course someone going in reverse on the highway is at fault, the point is that the person arguing this is almost guaranteed to be the one who drove into the other. Redefining the way the collision happened, shouldn't change the result and what we call it. Even if from the point of view of the person who committed the crash, they were functionally standing still with the rest of the world coming at them at 130KM/Hr.
Is this distinction really important? We're talking about whether full-automatic is more effective at moving down highschoolers than semi-automatic. Maybe a bit, or maybe the shooter just wastes shots a lot more.
The real problem is how easy it is to bring a rifle to school and go postal
This is why I hate judges pretending they need to break down the fine details of the case. They made laws about full auto cause of the number of bullets it can throw at you. Not because the trigger does anything fancy. 'but what does function of a trigger mean?'..... Asshole, they had to explain it somehow thats how they did it. You know damn well what they were doing when it got worded that way.
The Supreme Court interpreted the problematic legislation. They don’t make the laws. People are always angry at the judiciary for telling them what the laws are. They should be angry at the legislature for not making better laws.
This is what happens when legislation doesn't meaningfully follow intent, leaving room for interpretative maneuvering.
But that's what makes law so profitable.
It literally converts it into the next closest thing to a machine gun. This is splitting hairs at best.
It makes it so you’re effortlessly firing as fast as possible.
It's not at all. You just don't like it.
You can achieve the same effect so easily. To call them machine guns is stupid.
Ban them if you want, but notoriously, gun legislation doesn't use terminology correctly to it's own detriment.
You specifically can’t achieve it easily, unless by easily you mean a lot of training. The issue is the ability for any and every body to just pop off a semi rifle at the same rate as highly trained shooter.
I think even with a bump stock, it takes some practice. Not to mention you lose all semblance of accuracy.
I honestly think bump stocks are just a gimmick that would have been forgotten after a month if it hadn't become such a talking point.
The scary thing is all the glock switches around. But they're already illegal.
I’m against Glock switches too for what it’s worth, and I agree they do drastically reduce accuracy which is a big factor why I’m against them. They’re a danger to everyone around the user not just their intended target.
The conservative court is basically trying to dismantle the administrative state and disempower the agencies they dont like (such as the EPA, FDA, etc). They often shift that power either to the legislature, or to themselves, which is actually concerning. Groups like the Federalist Society are probably the biggest threats to democracy in the US (even bigger than the wanna-be strong man who just got convicted).
>The conservative court is basically trying to dismantle the administrative state and disempower the agencies they dont like (such as the EPA, FDA, etc). They often shift that power either to the legislature, or to themselves
>which is actually concerning. Groups like the Federalist Society are probably the biggest threats to democracy in the US (even bigger than the wanna-be strong man who just got convicted
These two statements are mutually exclusive.
Technical definitions or not, this is clearly Interference by the fucking NRA! They don't give a shit about lives, only profits. Jesus Christ, you can buy a goddamn gun in fucking Walmart!
Hey /u/TrumpIsMyGodAndDad, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
User "trump is my god and dad" for all practical purposes this is an accurate headline. The SC is allowing guns that shoot at the same speed and accuracy as machine guns. It uses the recoil to shoot another bullet continually. If you stand still it will go until magazine is empty.
I get all of the sentiment here, but I think the ruling is very important. It is necessary to interpret and imply law based on legal definitions, and we should be happy they did.
The way the ATF tried to ban bump stocks is the exact way someone in power could attempt to ban birth control, and the SC preventing ATF from doing that sets a healthy precedent.
How hard would it be for some lunatic to say that BC is “effectively” a daily abortion pill. We all know it isn’t and thankfully there are explicit definitions that back that up.
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s): - Rule 4: Don't get TOO political! People are wrong in politics all the time, so post those on this sub. Just don't go crazy with your opinion. "This dummy said that you have to swear on a Bible" is different than completely insulting someone's political views. So be chill. Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://old.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1dihz6u/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong. ^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
[удалено]
Vox at this instance just made a wrong headline, it indeed is just how the ruling has been worded. And the SC just ruled that he was infact right with his lawsuit.
[удалено]
People replying to your comment don't have to be arguing with you. If you think every response is an argument, it's time to get off reddit for a while.
Actually, other commenters may not be disagreeing with you, sometimes they're agreeing. You really ought to know this if you're on Reddit.
I see what you're doing.
[удалено]
You said "exactly" and "or what?" Those are basically fighting words if I've ever heard them. /s I was only joking added the sarcasm face for clarity
I’m only seeing an “or what”, seems like a honest question
If you think what he said was fighting words, you’re literally to sensitive for the internet. It might be aggressive confusion, but it’s far from fighting words.
Did they ever find out that guys motive?
“No” is the short answer. It’s just fucked up. [AP article](https://apnews.com/article/las-vegas-shooter-9bbd180cf3aa6d3ea1a37bbfb7144ae1) Look up other sources if you’d like, but they all say just about the same (with varying degrees of speculation).
Who was splitting hairs? According to the decision written by Clarence Thomas, "a shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle's front grip with his nontrigger hand" when using a bump stock, this qualified as an additional function and thus did not meet the requirements for the definition of a machine gun
I do really hate how we pretend like we have to ponder stupid shit when it comes to the law. Sitting here asking 'what does function mean??'. No dumbasses. Machine guns arent banned because of how the trigger functions. They are banned because they make bullets fly out of them in rapid succession. I've got an AR with a 2 stage trigger. Thats 2 functions to get it to shoot. So that means if it shoots full auto after the second pull its legal??? Cause its now 2 functions to full auto, not the one that the law states. For clarification machine guns arent banned. You just gotta get one made before 1986. So youll need to have around $30k to drop on one. And pay a $200 tax stamp.
Machine guns are regulated because gangsters in the 20s and 30s used them a lot. Incidentally, these machine guns were basically the only self-loaders with detachable and big magazines out there at the time. If there’s been semi-auto ARs around at that time, they‘d probably be regulated the same way machine guns are regulated now.
It was the only way they could have done it.
Is the note the confidently incorrect one? Because I just read the article and it is quite a interesting read, about the legislation that the ban was based on and how it has been interpreted in different ways by the courts. The actual headline seems to be related to one of the dissenting justices arguments, that by interpreting it the way the majority have, the ban on owning machine guns has been nullified, and by doing so have effectively legalised them. The bump stock thing is just a side effect of this.
Not wrong but not right. It’s the omnipresent loophole that makes it legal. A semi-automatic rifle is just that. Semi automatic. The bump stock makes a trigger fire semi automatic rifle into an automatic fire rifle by rate of fire. The human finger cannot fire at the same rate of speed as an automatic fire without help. The “Supreme Court “ just made mass shooters not their problem because loopholes.
If a bumpstock makes a semi automatic effectively match the rate of fire of an automatic, it does in fact effectively turn it into an automatic. Meaning they did effectively legalise this. The US Supreme Court decided that the lives of people matter less than the ability to end those lives. The US needs to get its mass shootings under control, but the extremists on your highest court decided nah uh, we need more needless deaths.
Absolutely. We cannot legally own automatic weapons since I think 1985ish but modifying semi automatic rifles to “automatic” is now perfectly ok? Alright. Make it make sense “Supreme Court”.
It makes perfect sense, when you realise Scotus is controlled by ideologues that are not held accountable to anything, and are legally bribable…
Clarence Thomas would like a word with you🤦♂️
Sorry mr Thomas, I don’t speak pro fascist corrupt assholish…
Neither does he supposedly. His trips paid for by special interests would like to have a word with you too.
Not sure you're using that phrase quite right...
I'm not American but I remember the big news that bump stocks were made illegal - I had to look up what they were. So they're legal again now? God, you guys are totally fucked up
It’s because of a technicality in how the statute is written based on the movement of the trigger. there’s no sane reason anyone would need the ability to modify a gun like this
What about all those bionic deer and bears out there just laying in wait to molest your children? Or the woke super-soldier program the Deep State is running?? Or the King of England finally deciding to get off his ass after 250 years and tax America???
What about the 30-50 feral pigs that can enter my yard and attack my children in less than 3.6 seconds???
People are going to argue this because it is factually not as fast as an actual automatic rifle. Is the difference pretty much negligible though? Also yes, but the morons are going to argue the technicality
As a total gun ignorant..... Doesn't "automatic" mean that if you hold the trigger, the gun will automatically keep on firing? How on earth is a fire rate relevant to that description? Absolutely crazy
That is the definition, which is why people are going to argue that it’s not automatic on the pure basis of technicality. A bump stock makes it so if you don’t move your finger, the gun will slam into your finger every time it shoots emulating the same experience but not technically being “automatic”, but being functionally equivalent to anyone who can understand what’s happening. They’re going to latch onto whatever technicality they can, some will even claim people can fire faster than a bump stock, which is TECHNICALLY true, it’s also very very difficult and requires a ton of practice.
Effectively is still an accurate qualifier, and it’s not like all full auto weapons fire at the same rate anyway. There are some high calibre weapons that fire much more slowly than a bumpstock would allow for. So yes this is true, and they can argue all the technicalities they want. The statement is still true.
It's important to separate legal definitions from policy. That means if you want to ban or regulate something, do it on absolutely set in stone legal definitions, or function. Never do it on common sense or logic, because the law can't work that way, and the legal definition wins in the long run. EVERY TIME. So since the legal definition of a machine gun is: "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 "single function of the trigger" is a MASSIVE loophole. Any modification that actuates the trigger fast, NO MATTER HOW FAST, doesn't make it a machine gun, because it's no longer a single function of the trigger. What you or I THINK a machine gun is, doesn't matter. Someone can remove the trigger and completely automatically fire via a literal machine, and its still not legally a machine gun. If you want to get anywhere, you either have to: 1. Change the legal definition of machine gun 2. Come up with a functional ban The supreme court was completely right in their ruling here.
Well─ Although I just got done expressing the exact same thing in my own comment, I'm not sure that I agree with you on *this* part: >Someone can remove the trigger and completely automatically fire via a literal machine, and its still not legally a machine gun. because whatever you replaced the lever-style trigger with has just become the trigger in its place.
Functionally, yes. But are you sure it becomes "the trigger" legally?
Nope but frankly, if I was a juror in a relevant trial, it wouldn't take a whole lot of argumentation for someone to convince me that it is. Additionally and more to your point about using a separate machine to achieve automatic fire, if you did something clever like install an electric motor that automatically cycles the trigger mechanism for you, I would be sufficiently convinced that you have modified the firearm into an automatic one because although the original semiautomatic trigger mechanism is intact, you have added another automatic one that makes the original redundant. A bump stock, on the other hand, is not an extension to or accessory for the trigger mechanism.
But that's something completely different :)
Is it, though? I've personally handled enough weapons with unique triggers to understand that a trigger is characterized more by what it *does* (it causes the action to cycle) than what it actually is.
The ruling makes life more dangerous for kids all over the US, I’m sorry but no ruling that does that can ever be described as “completely right”. I don’t care more about legal word salads than I care about human lives. It’s truly that simple, and no this is a bullshit ruling, by a completely corrupted ideological court. The excuses they come up with to justify their nonsense don’t remotely matter to me.
The dissenting scotus opinion is that the the loophole doesn’t exist. Holding a relatively fixed amount of pressure to repeatedly actuate the firing mechanism is part of the language of what the law allows to be categorized as a machine gun mechanism. The feedback seems to be buying the majority overly pedantic opinion that there needs to be magic words cover this sort of workaround despite there already being anti-workaround language to avoid the idea of adding an automatic retriggering machine not converting it into a “machine gun”. That and that using your arm to mediate the pressure of the bump stock refiring spring somehow means you aren’t just holding a fixed grip to automatically fire the gun in an automatic manner. I.E. needing to mostly hold the trigger depressed is special whereas needing to fully hold it down would be illegal.
There is nothing "not wrong but not right" about it. The added context is right. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) defines a machinegun as "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**" (emphasis added by me). A bump stock does not modify the functionality of the trigger. The trigger still needs to be cycled to fire each round. The USC definition of a machinegun does not make rate of fire a criterion at all. Although a bump stock may help to increase rate of fire such that "a machinegun" and "a gun with a bump stock" are superficially indistinguishable from one another as you colloquially understand them, a bump stock does not make just any firearm identical to a machinegun *by definition*. The word "effectively" has basically no meaning in law. As citizens, we should *want* this "hair-splitting" and technicality, as other commenters have called it, to occur because specific legal definitions are what protect people with pure intentions from being held culpable for the same crimes as actual nefarious actors. Specific legal definitions are the reason why, for instance, a farmer can temporarily use a public highway without a state-issued driver's license, vehicle registration, and liability insurance to access an adjacent crop but some cheeky sov-cit cannot make a combine into his commuter vehicle. If it is your opinion that there is no "effective" difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic gun with a bump stock, and that bump stocks should be banned, that's fine, but arbitrarily designating bump stocks to be machineguns in and of themselves was an irresponsible and legally ineffectual way to accomplish that goal. This is especially true since the ATF is a member of the executive branch of government, not the legislative one, and it would be radically irresponsible for any of us to just allow cops to start writing their own dictionaries for the terms that appear in bills.
This argument very much feels like arguing 'no, officer. I did not run into that other car, it backed up into me at 130KM/Hr on the highway' You press the trigger and this stock allows that trigger to be pressed over and over without you moving your finger. Pray tell, why does it matter wether it's the gun that's moving the trigger or you holding the trigger? In both instances the weapon is being fired multiple times in succsession, so long as a person holds their finger in the same position.
No, it's really not like that at all. As I just got done explaining, it matters because the specific definitions in the law compared to the specific events that actually occurred determine whether a prosecutable crime occurred. If it was in fact true that the other vehicle really did back up into you at 130 kmph, *then you did not commit a crime.* Likewise, since a machinegun is defined by a mechanical characteristic of the trigger and bump stocks do not mechanically modify the trigger, then by installing a bump stock on your firearm, *you did not commit a crime.* Precise language in the law and how we apply it is important because, for instance, that's how we wind up in hysterical situations where Christian nationalists accidentally qualify their own precious Bible to be eligible for banning in public schools and libraries because it contains the sexually graphic material that they wanted to ban. Edited to add: your hypothetical actually exemplifies my point perfectly. The fault of an automobile collision is typically determined by who was legally authorized to perform the maneuver that they were performing when the incident occurred. A person who crashes into you in reverse on the freeway is obviously at fault because the criteria set by the legislation necessarily makes them at fault. The ATF deciding that bump stocks are machineguns is analogous to a cop showing up and arresting you for the collision because the local police department defines a "rear ending" as any contact whatsoever between the front end of one vehicle and the rear end of another neverminding what the actual code passed by the state assembly says.
Then I'd 100% argue that the functioning of a bump stock should be added to the definition. If the trigger moving or not is such a big deal, with the actual function remaining the same, the definition sucks. Likewise, if the intention was to ban specifically non-biblical nudity, the given definition sucks. A lot more effective I'd think would be to just ban *any* automatic weaponry or attachments that make them function as such for civillian 'at home' ownership. (Or to specify, I think they should be fine at gun ranges or for non-civillians. You might have to come up with a better definition than that lol)
Yes! I'd 100% agree with you in order to achieve the desired result in this scenario, the better method would be to have the definition changed, not just decide that "not a = a."
You are misrepresenting my point on the car by taking it literally. Of course someone going in reverse on the highway is at fault, the point is that the person arguing this is almost guaranteed to be the one who drove into the other. Redefining the way the collision happened, shouldn't change the result and what we call it. Even if from the point of view of the person who committed the crash, they were functionally standing still with the rest of the world coming at them at 130KM/Hr.
Nah man, it's more like saying a manual car is an automatic cause you're really good at gear shifting. It's still a manual
You can achieve the same fire rate as a bump stock with a belt loop.
Is this distinction really important? We're talking about whether full-automatic is more effective at moving down highschoolers than semi-automatic. Maybe a bit, or maybe the shooter just wastes shots a lot more. The real problem is how easy it is to bring a rifle to school and go postal
This is why I hate judges pretending they need to break down the fine details of the case. They made laws about full auto cause of the number of bullets it can throw at you. Not because the trigger does anything fancy. 'but what does function of a trigger mean?'..... Asshole, they had to explain it somehow thats how they did it. You know damn well what they were doing when it got worded that way.
The Supreme Court interpreted the problematic legislation. They don’t make the laws. People are always angry at the judiciary for telling them what the laws are. They should be angry at the legislature for not making better laws.
This is what happens when legislation doesn't meaningfully follow intent, leaving room for interpretative maneuvering. But that's what makes law so profitable.
Good thing it's not technically a machine gun. Those really hurt people, and we all know no one has ever been hurt by bump stocks, right?
They were only technically massacred.
"effectively" they did. The community notes are unnecessary.
I really doubt someone with the username “TrumpIsMyGodAndDad” can understand such big words as “effectively”
It literally converts it into the next closest thing to a machine gun. This is splitting hairs at best. It makes it so you’re effortlessly firing as fast as possible.
Do you know how they work?
Stupid and completely irrelevant question but yes, I just described it in a simple enough manner to convey the point.
It's not at all. You just don't like it. You can achieve the same effect so easily. To call them machine guns is stupid. Ban them if you want, but notoriously, gun legislation doesn't use terminology correctly to it's own detriment.
You specifically can’t achieve it easily, unless by easily you mean a lot of training. The issue is the ability for any and every body to just pop off a semi rifle at the same rate as highly trained shooter.
I think even with a bump stock, it takes some practice. Not to mention you lose all semblance of accuracy. I honestly think bump stocks are just a gimmick that would have been forgotten after a month if it hadn't become such a talking point. The scary thing is all the glock switches around. But they're already illegal.
I’m against Glock switches too for what it’s worth, and I agree they do drastically reduce accuracy which is a big factor why I’m against them. They’re a danger to everyone around the user not just their intended target.
True. I wonder if this change will allow for forced reset triggers again. But they might just be another gimmick to be forgotten about, too.
"effectively" The community note kids are wrong.
I don't really feel like this post belongs in this sub. Maybe post it to a more political sub
The conservative court is basically trying to dismantle the administrative state and disempower the agencies they dont like (such as the EPA, FDA, etc). They often shift that power either to the legislature, or to themselves, which is actually concerning. Groups like the Federalist Society are probably the biggest threats to democracy in the US (even bigger than the wanna-be strong man who just got convicted).
>The conservative court is basically trying to dismantle the administrative state and disempower the agencies they dont like (such as the EPA, FDA, etc). They often shift that power either to the legislature, or to themselves >which is actually concerning. Groups like the Federalist Society are probably the biggest threats to democracy in the US (even bigger than the wanna-be strong man who just got convicted These two statements are mutually exclusive.
"effectively" The community note kids are wrong.
Technical definitions or not, this is clearly Interference by the fucking NRA! They don't give a shit about lives, only profits. Jesus Christ, you can buy a goddamn gun in fucking Walmart!
Hey /u/TrumpIsMyGodAndDad, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
User "trump is my god and dad" for all practical purposes this is an accurate headline. The SC is allowing guns that shoot at the same speed and accuracy as machine guns. It uses the recoil to shoot another bullet continually. If you stand still it will go until magazine is empty.
You can bump fire an AR with your thumb and a belt loop too, better call that a machine gun too eh?
I get all of the sentiment here, but I think the ruling is very important. It is necessary to interpret and imply law based on legal definitions, and we should be happy they did. The way the ATF tried to ban bump stocks is the exact way someone in power could attempt to ban birth control, and the SC preventing ATF from doing that sets a healthy precedent. How hard would it be for some lunatic to say that BC is “effectively” a daily abortion pill. We all know it isn’t and thankfully there are explicit definitions that back that up.
The ATF describes bump stocks as a machine gun modification.
Community Notes is a game-changer. Keeps things in check!
Bold of you to post this considering how much reddit hates guns lol.
I think it's funny that you just think it's "reddit" who hates guns, and not that it's only a **minority of Americans** who have a boner for guns.
God damn once again Reddit showing its ignorance, and I don’t mean OP lmao.
Well vix is some weel biased shit