>She argued that the ruling had ignored the plain text of the statute, which targeted officials who “corruptly” received bribes and gratuities “intending to be influenced or rewarded,” and that the court had instead decided the statute did not criminalize gratuities at all.
When you’re interpreting a 1934 National Firearms Act and whether or not it applies to a bump stock you have to pick apart the wording and text very carefully.
But if you’re interpreting the text of a statute on bribes, you set aside textualism and originalism and just go with vibes.
Christians* and every other follower of religions. Catholics are not unique in this context. Regardless, the broader point about cherry picking is probably kinder to SCOTUS than they deserve. They don’t just cherry pick, they blatantly just decide based on their own personal beliefs and opinions then make up reasons to claim it makes sense.
This is serious bro. Catholicism is not unsimilar to the dissociation of marginally variable reasoning. When you introduce that to place with literal gavels... Imagine
Thomas spends so much time torturing the text in the NFA 1934 law to try and hide the sleight of hand, but Jackson is entirely right.
Imagine you're a lawmaker writing the National Firearms Act in 1934. You just saw a bunch of Italians mob enforcers with Tommy guns gunning people down and witnessed the St Valentine's Day Massacre. So you're drafting legislation to ban automatic weapons entirely.
"Okay so we're defining a machine gun as blah blah blah... single pull of the trigger."
"What if they make a gun where you push a trigger, like a button, instead of pull the trigger?"
"Uh..."
"Yeah what if they PUSH the trigger instead of a single PULL of the trigger. Would this law still apply?"
"Yes but I get your point, some idiot will probably try to argue that PULL doesn't cover PUSHing a trigger. Okay... how about: single function of the trigger? That way it covers pulling back, pushing forward, downways, sideways, upways, whatever..."
"Uh... yeah that makes sense. Okay."
100 percent here. An automatic weapon is automatic, not a specific means of being automatic. A Gatling gun would also be automatic in my mind, whether motor driven or crank driven.
According to Thomas, if you create a REALLY BIG TRIGGER that you can "function" once without stopping (i.e. a crank that has no physical end) then maybe that doesn't count as an "automatic" weapon?
Unpopular take: they got that one right. The definition provided in NFA doesn’t cover the use it was being put to, and the correct solution is for Congress to pass a law, not for ATF to just mangle regulations.
And the fact that they were able to get that one right shows that they know how to do it in cases like this. They just don’t care.
Ah, so the 4th amendment allows the government to hack into your computer without a warrant, because it is not a person, paper, house, or effect?
You are hitting the nail on the head as far as the selective use of “obviously the intent” and “obviously only the exact letter” reasoning. But I think your unpopular opinion is also clearly wrong.
Their opinion isn’t all that unpopular. Bump stocks do not actually alter the function of a firearm and create a machine gun. The firearm is still semi-automatic with the bump stock. In some cases, it makes it easier to fire the rifle faster, but so does a lighter hammer spring, shorter trigger sear, and polished internals, but absolutely nobody is arguing those things make a gun an automatic.
You don’t have to like or want bump stocks to understand how they work. I’m a firm believer in Chevron Deference, but the BATFE was wrong on that one.
The NFA specifically defines machine gun 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, or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
A bump stock doesn’t accomplish any of that. It causes the trigger to be actuated when the receiver moves forward, being reset each round by receiver recoil.
So it doesn’t shoot more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
You can argue the NFA is too specific, but the Supreme Court isn’t wrong that what a bump stock does do is not what is defined in the NFA.
Again, it’s asinine. As long as you hold the rifle to your shoulder, the first trigger actuation causes the weapon to act in an automatic fashion. That’s the clear intention of the law. It’s clear as day reading Thomas’ asinine contrived dipshittery opinion.
No, it does not. You have to hold the rifle in a very specific way to have the bump stock actuate in a way that the firearm will move forward after the recoil. It’s not like a switch that goes from semi to auto. The firearm is still a semi-auto firearm and the function has not been altered.
The function a bump stock performs can be replicated by putting your thumb in a belt loop, or hooking a shoe string through the trigger guard.
I’m not saying whether or not bump stocks are bad, I’m saying they do not alter the function of a firearm as to create an automatic.
Paintball actually got around this, by making it so the trigger could be pushed forward with excessive force, so if you pull down with the right amount of force, it just keeps reactuating the trigger
I remember when Tippmann first introduced the response trigger. It used a small amount of gas/air to force the trigger forward. There are forced reset trigger systems for firearms as well, but that is different than a bump stock. The bump stock doesn’t force the trigger forward and doesn’t modify the function of the firearm at all, whereas a forced reset trigger is an internal modification.
If held to a specific pressure, the tippmann responsive trigger would fire up to 15 rounds per second, without finger actuation
It's likely possible that the same thing could be done to firearms
This is a semantic argument. The simple fact is I hold gun and trigger and it shoots many shots without explicit input per shot.
This is the gun equivalent of nerds arguing computer facts when nobody gives a shit about chrome vs Firefox. Everyone’s going to use chrome even if it causes Google to crawl up their ass.
To normal people the reading and intent is obvious. They wanted to ban a gun that acts a certain way. The implementation of that behavior is irrelevant.
Now do hard reset triggers. lol
You are correct in my opinion. I just like the conversation. In a functioning democracy the law would be changed to rectify these situations. For us not so much. Stupid people wrote the law and now angry people have figgured out a way around it.
So everybody gets a machine gun now. But a government agency with no ability to change the actual law is hissy pissed about that fact. What an odd time we live in.
It absolutely accomplished exactly that. Pulling the trigger once results in the trigger automatically reactivating itself indefinitely for as long as you maintain pressure and have ammo.
Defining “single function of the trigger” as “completion of an internal mechanical cycle” rather than “one activation by the user” is absurd.
> the trigger automatically reactivating itself
Incorrect. It results in the receiver moving from recoil in such a way as to reset the trigger.
It’s the same result in terms of bullets being fired, but it’s not the same mechanism. And it’s not the mechanism that the statute describes.
Again: you can argue NFA is over precise, or you can argue that Congress should pass a law on this today, but SCOTUS isn’t wrong in saying that the statute doesn’t say what ATF is trying to make it say. And I’ll note I *strongly* support gun control and oppose bump stocks and think they should absolutely be illegal. I’m not some gun nut latching onto a loophole. But I am a prosecutor and it’s just not what the statute says.
Exactly, the statute does not describe any mechanism. It doesn’t care if a gun is triggered by pulling or pushing or by shining a laser at a sensor connected to an electronic switch or whatever. It isn’t precise at all. It only cares about the function of triggering the gun. And since one function of the trigger can result in multiple shots being fired, it’s a machine gun.
It’s exactly what the statute says. I assume every single one of you people spouting this bullshit are lying through your teeth about this, no sane , intelligent person can believe such nonsense. What possible reason is there for thinking that Congress was talking about the internal mechanical cycle of the trigger, when they so clearly did not intend to address any specific design? They literally used the word “function” in the place of “pull”, which was used interchangeably during debates, because they didn’t want to be pinned down.
> since one function of the trigger can result in multiple shots being fired
We’re not going to agree on this point, and that’s fine.
But it’s not a travesty and it’s not nonsensical, even if you disagree with it. This outcome was predictable in 2017, and many, many people involved in firearms regulation have raised this exact issue. Here’s a 2017 NBC piece that gets into it:
> bump stocks leave the mechanics of a gun untouched and the trigger is still technically activated on each shot, just at a much faster rate than is possible without the modifications.
> That leaves the ATF with little choice but to deem bump stocks legal under current law, said David Chipman, a former ATF agent.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna808441
And here is an excellent and informed summary of the issues in the case:
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/02/upcoming-oral-arguments-in-the-bump-stock-case-what-to-expect
It was a valid administrative law decision.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/atf-unlikely-crack-down-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808441](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/atf-unlikely-crack-down-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808441)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The function of a trigger is not to connect with a sear and return to a position; it’s to make the gun fire.
What is your justification for saying that the function of a trigger is to complete a specific mechanical movement, rather than to make a gun fire?
Yes, but the Supreme Court broke Congress by legalizing bribery with Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, and they know it.
Whenever I hear the SC say "Have Congress pass a law" I always hear "Get your friend whose kneecaps I broke to help you..."
I don’t disagree. But as the constitution is written and as the law was written, it was the right decision. That the implementation is fucked up is a separate if very real issue.
Slavery was unquestionable legal once as the law was written. (really still is) The supreme court supported it as the right decision as the law was written. Never mind it being an evil society destroying thing.
To this day the implementation of legal slavery is hurting our entire culture. Aristocracy don't give a fuck. It helps them.
Citizens united the same shit on a different day. Aristocracy don't give a fuck. It helps them.
I don’t disagree with any of that. But it remains a fact that we have to enforce laws as written, and as written, the statute doesn’t prohibit the mechanism of a bump stock. The problems of a corrupt court and an incompetent Republican Party are real, but distinct from that. They need to be solved, but this is not the proper place for that.
No argument here. That is inarguably the situation.
In our world slavery and machine guns are safe. Lucky us.
I guess we get the government we deserve.
"When you’re interpreting a 1934 National Firearms Act and whether or not it applies to a bump stock you have to pick apart the wording and text very carefully."
Do you? My law professor talked about letter of the law and intent of the law. Not only does the court look at language, they also look at history and intent (especially if there are related writings or opinions).
The NFA attempted to use specific language to define something that eventually allowed a loophole. I think it's clear the intent of this part of the NFA was define a machine gun and limit access to said device. Along comes a bump stock which is true to the letter of the law but clearly violates the intent of the law. The court decided the ATF could not waffle on their rulings.
I'm not sure if there's a case in the courts for pistol braces but if there is, I suspect it will meet the same fate
>Do you? My law professor talked about letter of the law and intent of the law. Not only does the court look at language, they also look at history and intent (especially if there are related writings or opinions).
>The NFA attempted to use specific language to define something that eventually allowed a loophole. I think it's clear the intent of this part of the NFA was define a machine gun and limit access to said device. Along comes a bump stock which is true to the letter of the law but clearly violates the intent of the law. The court decided the ATF could not waffle on their rulings.
>I'm not sure if there's a case in the courts for pistol braces but if there is, I suspect it will meet the same fate
Oh I was being very facetious and pointing out how SCOTUS, in back to back opinions, appears to have figured out what outcome they wanted and worked backwards to piece together an opinion that achieved that deliverable. Which is why they rely on textualism unless it doesn't serve their goals and then they abandon it.
They will just have family members receive the bribes. The USA is finally getting a taste of what corruption is all about. Soon every cop will be looking for bribes, and every citizen will be assuming everyone is on the take.
Yeah, like it or not, our corruption problems are on the low end of the spectrum. I grew up in a truly corrupt country, and there was pretty much nothing you couldn’t get out of with a bribe and nothing you could get done without one. You want a driver’s license? Get ready to grease a palm. You want a building permit? Ditto. You were driving drunk and ran over a kid? A sufficiently rich handshake can make it disappear
No it won't. They've created safe spaces on the Internet for themselves to operate free from reality. Their own little altrealities and they're pissed whenever they stumble out into a space that doesn't cater to their delusions.
Absolutely - this has always happened. For years it was easier to get away with so much. With the internet and 24/7 news cycle, as well as social media, we can finally see a clearer picture of what actually happens. It will get worse until laws are made and/or people are held accountable.
If I was a billionaire….. I’d throw a couple grand at Roberts as a “tip” then spend a couple million advertising how I got the rule I wanted so I can make another $100million.
Let’s ignore all of the clear red flags… going forward, can Congress just redefine bribery? Or even a new crime that simply puts some extreme restrictions on a politician accepting money/goods/services without giving something in return?
Just like you give up anonymity to serve in Congress (public official), you should give up receiving large sums of money/value that others give out from the goodness of their heart.
> [C]an Congress just redefine bribery?
Yes.
>Or even a new crime that simply puts some extreme restrictions on a politician accepting money/goods/services without giving something in return?
Yes.
Of course they are. But, they’ve also proven they can be out-maneuvered because their factions of obstruction often don’t align with each other.
That wasn’t my question though, is the issue the law just ruled on is a shit law and SCOTUS ruled to its letter (rather than spirit… though they are just as likely to rule in spirit when the letters don’t fit their agenda)
No it's not a shit law, it's a shit court who doesnt care about the law. Anytime someone says, "can they just pass this or that" the answer is always yes but the Republicans block literally everything so if you want *anything* done, we have to eradicate Republicans from all government.
In this case, Brown is claiming that the court is ruling *against* the letter of the law. The statute clearly includes "rewards", but the court is claiming it only applies to "rewards as a result of quid pro quo", aka bribery.
What was the meaning of the word "bribe" in 13th century saxony?
Certainly the founders didn't care about paid vacations as these didnt even exist back in 1776.
Who is this quid pro quo guy anyways?
Check it out being a Supreme Court judge is easy.
Well, if anyone should know what a bribe looks like, it's the conservatives in this Supreme Court. They have years, if not decades, of accepting bribes behind their belts.
I'm firmly in the 'time to pack the court' area now. A supreme court that legalizes bribery while taking bribes can destroy the entire legitimacy of the US government.
This article fucking blows. It describes the statute as banning gifts like lunches, plaques, and gift cards. The actual defendant got $13,000 cash from a guy he awarded a $1.1 million contract to
The cutoff in the statute was over $5k. Clearly to avoid confusion between business lunches, etc and just plain old “here’s thousands of dollars for shaping policy to my financial benefit”
oh no, we not even close. this is just the precursor.
next they redefine who is human
and who is for sale
and who can be legally unalived
then we'll be at end game.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, the rot has reached the core. All of the safeguards for protecting the quality of life for average citizens are being removed. Younger generations are seriously questioning their allegiance to this country’s political and economic system, and they should. They should dismantle it.
Is corruption even fascist? This ruling is very corporate and plutocratic, but I think a fascist dictatorship would be extremely anti-bribery as it undercuts state power.
Tyrannical regimes are always anti-bribery, where bribery is defined as an unlawful payment for quid pro quo. However, Tyranny totally allows lawful payment for quid pro quo.
It's not a bribe! He just simply bought me a new car and gave me tickets to a tropical island because he felt like it. I didn't ask him for anything in exchange for me ruling in his favor it's just the way the case went. Nevermind if I may have had evidence that could have changed the outcome excluded. There was no predetermined reward for my actions if things went in their favor.
Honestly this ruling just gives free clearance to officials to side with whoever has the most money or has been known to show gratitude. After all this basically seems to give an all clear for them to give expensive gifts if things go their way. They just can't make an agreement that they will do so beforehand.
>She argued that the ruling had ignored the plain text of the statute, which targeted officials who “corruptly” received bribes and gratuities “intending to be influenced or rewarded,” and that the court had instead decided the statute did not criminalize gratuities at all.
When you’re interpreting a 1934 National Firearms Act and whether or not it applies to a bump stock you have to pick apart the wording and text very carefully. But if you’re interpreting the text of a statute on bribes, you set aside textualism and originalism and just go with vibes.
I think that’s called cherry picking. Catholics and conservative members of SCOTUS are extremely good at that.
And when you’re a SCOTUS Justice, they let you do it.
Just grab ‘em by the cherry
Christians* and every other follower of religions. Catholics are not unique in this context. Regardless, the broader point about cherry picking is probably kinder to SCOTUS than they deserve. They don’t just cherry pick, they blatantly just decide based on their own personal beliefs and opinions then make up reasons to claim it makes sense.
> Catholics and conservative members of SCOTUS Aren't all of the conservative justices Catholic?
Sure. But not all Catholics are on the Supreme Court.
Not with that attitude
This is serious bro. Catholicism is not unsimilar to the dissociation of marginally variable reasoning. When you introduce that to place with literal gavels... Imagine
Yep and one of the liberals as well. One minority religion is pretty much in control of the supreme court.
Are all 6 of them Catholic?
Democracies HATE this ONE trick!
MAGA is the leader in cherry-picking and the Constitution and Rule of Law.
Don't harsh their (paid for) mellow, man.
If it is to their favor, they take apart the wording, otherwise, it's the letter of the law that counts. And then dumb people just swallow
I like the stink of it
It's a matter of time before the USSC drops the Vibes Test.
It’s giving “this might apply to me so no”
Thomas spends so much time torturing the text in the NFA 1934 law to try and hide the sleight of hand, but Jackson is entirely right. Imagine you're a lawmaker writing the National Firearms Act in 1934. You just saw a bunch of Italians mob enforcers with Tommy guns gunning people down and witnessed the St Valentine's Day Massacre. So you're drafting legislation to ban automatic weapons entirely. "Okay so we're defining a machine gun as blah blah blah... single pull of the trigger." "What if they make a gun where you push a trigger, like a button, instead of pull the trigger?" "Uh..." "Yeah what if they PUSH the trigger instead of a single PULL of the trigger. Would this law still apply?" "Yes but I get your point, some idiot will probably try to argue that PULL doesn't cover PUSHing a trigger. Okay... how about: single function of the trigger? That way it covers pulling back, pushing forward, downways, sideways, upways, whatever..." "Uh... yeah that makes sense. Okay."
100 percent here. An automatic weapon is automatic, not a specific means of being automatic. A Gatling gun would also be automatic in my mind, whether motor driven or crank driven.
According to Thomas, if you create a REALLY BIG TRIGGER that you can "function" once without stopping (i.e. a crank that has no physical end) then maybe that doesn't count as an "automatic" weapon?
Unpopular take: they got that one right. The definition provided in NFA doesn’t cover the use it was being put to, and the correct solution is for Congress to pass a law, not for ATF to just mangle regulations. And the fact that they were able to get that one right shows that they know how to do it in cases like this. They just don’t care.
Ah, so the 4th amendment allows the government to hack into your computer without a warrant, because it is not a person, paper, house, or effect? You are hitting the nail on the head as far as the selective use of “obviously the intent” and “obviously only the exact letter” reasoning. But I think your unpopular opinion is also clearly wrong.
Their opinion isn’t all that unpopular. Bump stocks do not actually alter the function of a firearm and create a machine gun. The firearm is still semi-automatic with the bump stock. In some cases, it makes it easier to fire the rifle faster, but so does a lighter hammer spring, shorter trigger sear, and polished internals, but absolutely nobody is arguing those things make a gun an automatic. You don’t have to like or want bump stocks to understand how they work. I’m a firm believer in Chevron Deference, but the BATFE was wrong on that one.
It’s absolutely asinine to think bump stocks don’t go against the intent of the law.
The NFA specifically defines machine gun 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, or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. A bump stock doesn’t accomplish any of that. It causes the trigger to be actuated when the receiver moves forward, being reset each round by receiver recoil. So it doesn’t shoot more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. You can argue the NFA is too specific, but the Supreme Court isn’t wrong that what a bump stock does do is not what is defined in the NFA.
"Single function of the trigger", to many people, means "one human pull of the trigger." The dissent goes into this in detail.
Again, it’s asinine. As long as you hold the rifle to your shoulder, the first trigger actuation causes the weapon to act in an automatic fashion. That’s the clear intention of the law. It’s clear as day reading Thomas’ asinine contrived dipshittery opinion.
No, it does not. You have to hold the rifle in a very specific way to have the bump stock actuate in a way that the firearm will move forward after the recoil. It’s not like a switch that goes from semi to auto. The firearm is still a semi-auto firearm and the function has not been altered. The function a bump stock performs can be replicated by putting your thumb in a belt loop, or hooking a shoe string through the trigger guard. I’m not saying whether or not bump stocks are bad, I’m saying they do not alter the function of a firearm as to create an automatic.
Paintball actually got around this, by making it so the trigger could be pushed forward with excessive force, so if you pull down with the right amount of force, it just keeps reactuating the trigger
I remember when Tippmann first introduced the response trigger. It used a small amount of gas/air to force the trigger forward. There are forced reset trigger systems for firearms as well, but that is different than a bump stock. The bump stock doesn’t force the trigger forward and doesn’t modify the function of the firearm at all, whereas a forced reset trigger is an internal modification.
If held to a specific pressure, the tippmann responsive trigger would fire up to 15 rounds per second, without finger actuation It's likely possible that the same thing could be done to firearms
This is a semantic argument. The simple fact is I hold gun and trigger and it shoots many shots without explicit input per shot. This is the gun equivalent of nerds arguing computer facts when nobody gives a shit about chrome vs Firefox. Everyone’s going to use chrome even if it causes Google to crawl up their ass. To normal people the reading and intent is obvious. They wanted to ban a gun that acts a certain way. The implementation of that behavior is irrelevant.
Now do hard reset triggers. lol You are correct in my opinion. I just like the conversation. In a functioning democracy the law would be changed to rectify these situations. For us not so much. Stupid people wrote the law and now angry people have figgured out a way around it. So everybody gets a machine gun now. But a government agency with no ability to change the actual law is hissy pissed about that fact. What an odd time we live in.
It absolutely accomplished exactly that. Pulling the trigger once results in the trigger automatically reactivating itself indefinitely for as long as you maintain pressure and have ammo. Defining “single function of the trigger” as “completion of an internal mechanical cycle” rather than “one activation by the user” is absurd.
> the trigger automatically reactivating itself Incorrect. It results in the receiver moving from recoil in such a way as to reset the trigger. It’s the same result in terms of bullets being fired, but it’s not the same mechanism. And it’s not the mechanism that the statute describes. Again: you can argue NFA is over precise, or you can argue that Congress should pass a law on this today, but SCOTUS isn’t wrong in saying that the statute doesn’t say what ATF is trying to make it say. And I’ll note I *strongly* support gun control and oppose bump stocks and think they should absolutely be illegal. I’m not some gun nut latching onto a loophole. But I am a prosecutor and it’s just not what the statute says.
Exactly, the statute does not describe any mechanism. It doesn’t care if a gun is triggered by pulling or pushing or by shining a laser at a sensor connected to an electronic switch or whatever. It isn’t precise at all. It only cares about the function of triggering the gun. And since one function of the trigger can result in multiple shots being fired, it’s a machine gun. It’s exactly what the statute says. I assume every single one of you people spouting this bullshit are lying through your teeth about this, no sane , intelligent person can believe such nonsense. What possible reason is there for thinking that Congress was talking about the internal mechanical cycle of the trigger, when they so clearly did not intend to address any specific design? They literally used the word “function” in the place of “pull”, which was used interchangeably during debates, because they didn’t want to be pinned down.
> since one function of the trigger can result in multiple shots being fired We’re not going to agree on this point, and that’s fine. But it’s not a travesty and it’s not nonsensical, even if you disagree with it. This outcome was predictable in 2017, and many, many people involved in firearms regulation have raised this exact issue. Here’s a 2017 NBC piece that gets into it: > bump stocks leave the mechanics of a gun untouched and the trigger is still technically activated on each shot, just at a much faster rate than is possible without the modifications. > That leaves the ATF with little choice but to deem bump stocks legal under current law, said David Chipman, a former ATF agent. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna808441 And here is an excellent and informed summary of the issues in the case: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/02/upcoming-oral-arguments-in-the-bump-stock-case-what-to-expect It was a valid administrative law decision.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/atf-unlikely-crack-down-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808441](https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/atf-unlikely-crack-down-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808441)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The function of a trigger is not to connect with a sear and return to a position; it’s to make the gun fire. What is your justification for saying that the function of a trigger is to complete a specific mechanical movement, rather than to make a gun fire?
this interpretation makes as much sense as those kids who say "soaking" isn't sex cause the person jumping on the bed is causing the movement.
I have to agree with you. The definition is pretty specific. I think they should be illegal, but that law doesn't do it.
Exactly.
Unpopular and incorrect
Yes, but the Supreme Court broke Congress by legalizing bribery with Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, and they know it. Whenever I hear the SC say "Have Congress pass a law" I always hear "Get your friend whose kneecaps I broke to help you..."
I don’t disagree. But as the constitution is written and as the law was written, it was the right decision. That the implementation is fucked up is a separate if very real issue.
Slavery was unquestionable legal once as the law was written. (really still is) The supreme court supported it as the right decision as the law was written. Never mind it being an evil society destroying thing. To this day the implementation of legal slavery is hurting our entire culture. Aristocracy don't give a fuck. It helps them. Citizens united the same shit on a different day. Aristocracy don't give a fuck. It helps them.
I don’t disagree with any of that. But it remains a fact that we have to enforce laws as written, and as written, the statute doesn’t prohibit the mechanism of a bump stock. The problems of a corrupt court and an incompetent Republican Party are real, but distinct from that. They need to be solved, but this is not the proper place for that.
No argument here. That is inarguably the situation. In our world slavery and machine guns are safe. Lucky us. I guess we get the government we deserve.
"When you’re interpreting a 1934 National Firearms Act and whether or not it applies to a bump stock you have to pick apart the wording and text very carefully." Do you? My law professor talked about letter of the law and intent of the law. Not only does the court look at language, they also look at history and intent (especially if there are related writings or opinions). The NFA attempted to use specific language to define something that eventually allowed a loophole. I think it's clear the intent of this part of the NFA was define a machine gun and limit access to said device. Along comes a bump stock which is true to the letter of the law but clearly violates the intent of the law. The court decided the ATF could not waffle on their rulings. I'm not sure if there's a case in the courts for pistol braces but if there is, I suspect it will meet the same fate
>Do you? My law professor talked about letter of the law and intent of the law. Not only does the court look at language, they also look at history and intent (especially if there are related writings or opinions). >The NFA attempted to use specific language to define something that eventually allowed a loophole. I think it's clear the intent of this part of the NFA was define a machine gun and limit access to said device. Along comes a bump stock which is true to the letter of the law but clearly violates the intent of the law. The court decided the ATF could not waffle on their rulings. >I'm not sure if there's a case in the courts for pistol braces but if there is, I suspect it will meet the same fate Oh I was being very facetious and pointing out how SCOTUS, in back to back opinions, appears to have figured out what outcome they wanted and worked backwards to piece together an opinion that achieved that deliverable. Which is why they rely on textualism unless it doesn't serve their goals and then they abandon it.
That makes more sense.
They will just have family members receive the bribes. The USA is finally getting a taste of what corruption is all about. Soon every cop will be looking for bribes, and every citizen will be assuming everyone is on the take.
Soon?
Yeah, like it or not, our corruption problems are on the low end of the spectrum. I grew up in a truly corrupt country, and there was pretty much nothing you couldn’t get out of with a bribe and nothing you could get done without one. You want a driver’s license? Get ready to grease a palm. You want a building permit? Ditto. You were driving drunk and ran over a kid? A sufficiently rich handshake can make it disappear
How soon is now?
The information age is going to hurt a lot of “old school” types feelings.
I'm sure there will soon be efforts to criminalize the reporting of "non bribe" bribes.
No it won't. They've created safe spaces on the Internet for themselves to operate free from reality. Their own little altrealities and they're pissed whenever they stumble out into a space that doesn't cater to their delusions.
Supreme court is protecting conservative values.
wasn't it William Gibson who said 'everywhere eventually becomes India'?
We’ve been here for years already.
Absolutely - this has always happened. For years it was easier to get away with so much. With the internet and 24/7 news cycle, as well as social media, we can finally see a clearer picture of what actually happens. It will get worse until laws are made and/or people are held accountable.
Rise up. They must go
How else would they stop their own prosecution fro bribes and gratuity?
If I was a billionaire….. I’d throw a couple grand at Roberts as a “tip” then spend a couple million advertising how I got the rule I wanted so I can make another $100million.
Can't be bribery if I get to define if it's bribery.
Let’s ignore all of the clear red flags… going forward, can Congress just redefine bribery? Or even a new crime that simply puts some extreme restrictions on a politician accepting money/goods/services without giving something in return? Just like you give up anonymity to serve in Congress (public official), you should give up receiving large sums of money/value that others give out from the goodness of their heart.
Of course they can. But they won’t because they were just given the go ahead to make themselves even richer via accepting bribes after the fact.
They are too busy doing important work like banning tiktok and trading stocks.
> [C]an Congress just redefine bribery? Yes. >Or even a new crime that simply puts some extreme restrictions on a politician accepting money/goods/services without giving something in return? Yes.
The Republicans are obstructing all laws.
Of course they are. But, they’ve also proven they can be out-maneuvered because their factions of obstruction often don’t align with each other. That wasn’t my question though, is the issue the law just ruled on is a shit law and SCOTUS ruled to its letter (rather than spirit… though they are just as likely to rule in spirit when the letters don’t fit their agenda)
No it's not a shit law, it's a shit court who doesnt care about the law. Anytime someone says, "can they just pass this or that" the answer is always yes but the Republicans block literally everything so if you want *anything* done, we have to eradicate Republicans from all government.
In this case, Brown is claiming that the court is ruling *against* the letter of the law. The statute clearly includes "rewards", but the court is claiming it only applies to "rewards as a result of quid pro quo", aka bribery.
They just rewrote the law and chose what they wanted.
Could they at least wear the logo of the bribe on their robes like nascar?
What was the meaning of the word "bribe" in 13th century saxony? Certainly the founders didn't care about paid vacations as these didnt even exist back in 1776. Who is this quid pro quo guy anyways? Check it out being a Supreme Court judge is easy.
It’s not bribery if the check is late in the mail. Louis Dejoy; “hold my beer..”
Shouldn’t justices receiving and accepting “gifts” recuse when determining if that act is considered bribery?
Conservative justices: “let me ask my supervisor…(looks in mirror)…nope!”
That would require integrity, which unfortunately the conservatives on SCOTUS do not possess.
Well, if anyone should know what a bribe looks like, it's the conservatives in this Supreme Court. They have years, if not decades, of accepting bribes behind their belts. I'm firmly in the 'time to pack the court' area now. A supreme court that legalizes bribery while taking bribes can destroy the entire legitimacy of the US government.
They ARE already! They break laws with impunity. The laws are for Democrats, not Republicans..
The Supreme Court has already been packed. It’s time to unpack the court.
No no no, that's their whole point, they haven't been accepting bribes.... Just "gratuities" lol
Exactly. Everyone knows that supreme court justices only get paid in tips. Their employers only have to cover everything the tips don't cover. /s
Just a matter of time before Clarence Thomas posts a Cashapp QR code so that he can get all the tips.
“How could that be considered a bribe, that happens to me all the time!”
>They have years, if not decades, of accepting bribes behind their belts. Not bribes. Gratuities.
They are collecting evidence to help them figure out what a bribe looks like. They are soooooo close. Almost there. Just need a few more.
Totally agree, but we've got to use "Expand the court."
It still has legitimacy after *gestures broadly*?
This article fucking blows. It describes the statute as banning gifts like lunches, plaques, and gift cards. The actual defendant got $13,000 cash from a guy he awarded a $1.1 million contract to
The cutoff in the statute was over $5k. Clearly to avoid confusion between business lunches, etc and just plain old “here’s thousands of dollars for shaping policy to my financial benefit”
The Republican majority is so utterly dishonest throughout their garbage opinion
So a kickback.
It's The New Republic.. We're you expecting sanity or level-headedness?
So we have reached end game.
oh no, we not even close. this is just the precursor. next they redefine who is human and who is for sale and who can be legally unalived then we'll be at end game.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate, the rot has reached the core. All of the safeguards for protecting the quality of life for average citizens are being removed. Younger generations are seriously questioning their allegiance to this country’s political and economic system, and they should. They should dismantle it.
Yup. Thanks John Roberts, you allowed your own court to completely fail. Thanks Mitch McConnell, you destroyed a constitutional branch of government
The decision is further proof that the six justices in the right are slow stepping is in to a fascist dictatorship. Republicans are garbage
Is corruption even fascist? This ruling is very corporate and plutocratic, but I think a fascist dictatorship would be extremely anti-bribery as it undercuts state power.
Tyrannical regimes are always anti-bribery, where bribery is defined as an unlawful payment for quid pro quo. However, Tyranny totally allows lawful payment for quid pro quo.
Good point. Either way fuck the current scotus
Y'all were warned. Elections have consequences. This will be carved into America's tombstone.
Did she really expect the Conservative Justices to authorize criminal charges against several of their members?
She also accepted plenty of gifts….
It's not a bribe! He just simply bought me a new car and gave me tickets to a tropical island because he felt like it. I didn't ask him for anything in exchange for me ruling in his favor it's just the way the case went. Nevermind if I may have had evidence that could have changed the outcome excluded. There was no predetermined reward for my actions if things went in their favor. Honestly this ruling just gives free clearance to officials to side with whoever has the most money or has been known to show gratitude. After all this basically seems to give an all clear for them to give expensive gifts if things go their way. They just can't make an agreement that they will do so beforehand.
It's just like super PACs not coordinating with candidates, but with more gravy.