Garland v. Cargill: Bump stock decision from SCOTUS

T

Tom Servo

Staff
The opinion is here [pdf].

Justice Thomas issued the majority opinion, and it was a 6-3 decision along the expected partisan lines.

This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-
automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a machinegun.” We hold that it does not and therefore affirm.
Click to expand...

The dissent was written by Justice Sotomayor, who had this bit of insight:

When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
Click to expand...
 
Tom Servo said:
The opinion is here [pdf].

Justice Thomas issued the majority opinion, and it was a 6-3 decision along the expected partisan lines.



The dissent was written by Justice Sotomayor, who had this bit of insight:
Click to expand...

Here is my concern.
The Supreme Court ruling invalidates the ban and finds that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms overstepped its authority by imposing it.
Click to expand...

In a 6-3, ruling, the court ruled the devices added to semiautomatic weapons to make them fire faster does not convert weapons into prohibited machine guns.
Click to expand...

This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a 'machinegun.' We hold that it does not," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.
Click to expand...

I do not speak the lawyer language, I need some one to interpret. What I see here is the two problems the SCOTUS had was the ATF in effect wrote the rule. Does that leave it open to congress writing a law banning bump stocks that they would uphold?

The second problem, the SCOTUS had a problem with the claim the bump stock created a machine gun. They did not say the bump stock is protected by the second. Nor did they imply after market accessories, such as bump stocks, are protected.

Personally, I don't care for one, I can not see how it would make a rifle more accurate, reliable, only make it shoot faster. But I see a real concern that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to state that after market parts are protected, and they did not state that. Am I seeing this wrong????


https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-firearms
 
s3779m said:
Personally, I don't care for one,...
Click to expand...

You have a lot of company on that.

s3779m said:
Does that leave it open to congress writing a law banning bump stocks that they would uphold?
Click to expand...

It leaves open congress writing a law without violating the APA by promulgating a too subjective reg that isn't especially related to the reg they put up for comment.

That doesn't bear on whether a bump stock ban would run afoul of something else, like the 2d Am.

s3779m said:
The second problem, the SCOTUS had a problem with the claim the bump stock created a machine gun. They did not say the bump stock is protected by the second. Nor did they imply after market accessories, such as bump stocks, are protected.
Click to expand...

Correct. This wasn't really a 2d Am. case. It was about whether ATF and DOJ had to only promulgate regs consistent with law.

The plaintiffs raised other issues, but the court resolved the matter on a narrower basis.
 
Simply put, in order to be a machine gun, it has to meet the definition in law of what a machine gun IS, and bumpfire stocks do not.

So, that's point #1

The ATF, on their own authority (after being instructed to "do something") decided to reclassify bumpfire stocks AS machine guns. They do not have the legal authority to do that. That's point #2.

Congress is always free to craft new laws, or change the language of existing laws under their constitutional authority.

Whether or not any change of law by congress will pass constitutional muster, and scrutiny is a different matter. Congress can, literally, pass anything they have the votes to pass, and if the President signs it into law, it becomes law, until, and unless it reaches the Supreme Court and is ruled unconstitutional,

That's our system, Its not fast, its not perfect, but it generally works to the benefit of our nation. Exceptions exist.
 
OMG although I shouldn’t be so surprised. I was just over at my parents house and on the TV was some news program talking about the ruling . They truly could not have misunderstood/misrepresented more what the case and ruling was about if they tried . The most hilarious part was when they started comparing gun deaths in other countries As if gun violence really had anything to do with the case .

A little part of me really wants that misinformation mile information Police/Law Enacted. Not really, but sure would love to put the shoe on the other foot one day
 
It sounds like Sotomayor is more interested in emotion than in proper application of the law. and that's really unusual for a liberal. Yep.

Are these things actually useful for anything other than shooting randomly into crowds? They look awfully wobbly compared to actual machine guns.
 
Tom Servo said:
The dissent was written by Justice Sotomayor, who had this bit of insight:
When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why am I not surprised that the self-professed "wise Latina" would cast aside the plain language of the law in favor of a result she would like to see? Let's hope we don't gat any more wise Latinas on the Supreme Court for a very long time.
 
s3779m said:
I do not speak the lawyer language, I need some one to interpret. What I see here is the two problems the SCOTUS had was the ATF in effect wrote the rule. Does that leave it open to congress writing a law banning bump stocks that they would uphold?

The second problem, the SCOTUS had a problem with the claim the bump stock created a machine gun. They did not say the bump stock is protected by the second. Nor did they imply after market accessories, such as bump stocks, are protected.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court traditionally rules narrowly, trying to address the exact question that is before them, and nothing more.

The issue here wasn't whether or not a bump stock makes a firearm fire faster. That's a given. The issue was that there is a federal law that defines a machine gun, and a bump stock doesn't change that. A firearm equipped with a bump stock still requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each shot. Therefore, according to the law, a bump stock cannot magically turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun.

So they ruled that the BATFE does not authority to write a regulation that is contary to the law.

Does that leave the door open for Congress to ban bump stocks? Yes, and no. Based on the logic of the ruling, I'd say that Congress can't simply pass a new law that says "Bump stocks are prohibited," because the new law would be in direct conflict with the existing definition in the law.

But Congress CAN revise the definition of a machine gun, which could then leave the door open to banning bump stocks.
 
Congress can write and pass a law banning bump stocks that would be Constitutional, if it was worded just the right way. What they cannot do is pass a law saying bump stocks are banned because they are machine guns.

At this time, and without changing the legal definition of a machine gun, bump fire stocks are not, and never were machine guns.

A Gatling gun is not legally a machine gun (unless its power driven), each portion of the crank handle's arc is a single pull of the "trigger".

Personally I've always felt that since shooting people for fun or profit is a crime, wasting effort, time, and money with regulations about what someone MIGHT shoot people with, is just dumb.
 
People who have surrendered their bump stocks, are they going to get them back or compensated?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
People who have surrendered their bump stocks, are they going to get them back or compensated?
Click to expand...

Now there's a question!

P.S. I LIKE the comment that about if folk want a law then CONGRESS should pass the law. Not some alphabet organization deciding on what's legal and what is not.
 
Every member of Congress swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Then they devote themselves to denigrating ,defying, and destroying the Constitution.

Are they capable of working together to hammer out a legislation?

It seems only when one party or the other has a dominant majority.

How long has it been since Congress has passed a budget? A CR is not a budget.

"Its too hard!"

They like delegating their responsibilities to bureaucracy.
They don't need any self discipline that way. They gain separation and deniability.
Bureaucrats love it as they get Power! (Unconstitutional Power.)

As the tee-shirt says, "We don't need to re-write the Constitution, We need to re-read it"

Despite certain vocal and dynamic Individuals, Congress has to re commit to its vows to the Constitution.
Its OK to not give an inch toward violating the Constitution . Within the bounds of the Constitution , Separation of Powers,etc Congress will have to get over themselves enough to work together to pass a law or a tax etc.

If they can't do that,GOOD! We have too many laws and taxes already!

There isn't a quota! Where is it written the job of Government is to take Wealth and Freedom from the People till its gone?

If you can afford the ammo, I don't care if you have a full auto quad .50 ,go to the range and burn 10,000 rounds in a day! Police up your brass and do no harm.

If you have a crossbow and harm or kill another person that is a big problem and you may deserve Life in Prison.

Possession of a thing is not an act of harm.

Fists ,feet and Fentanyl kill far more people than bump stocks.

Choosing humans for targets ? Now,that is a problem. There ought to be a law against that. At least in most cases.

Last year about 100,000 people died of Fentanyl in USA. Its our largest killer of young people.
Think about porous border, Cartels, China....Follow the money.

Suicide is another leading killer.

Bump stocks??? Really? Are we serious?

Was it eight illegals connected with ISIS that were just apprehended? Many thousands ,maybe millions of people have come here not because they love the USA. They chant "Death to America". Good reason to arm and train.


Are we banning Bic Lighters? How horrible are arson caused wildfires?

Bumpstocks? A shiny object to distract attention. The media loves them.Lets watch the ducks. Quack,quack.
 
Why am I not surprised that the self-professed "wise Latina" would cast aside the plain language of the law in favor of a result she would like to see?
Click to expand...

That was the reaction from her side of the aisle the whole time. Or rather, it was the lack of reaction.

What Trump did in this case was out of bounds and terrifying. He wanted the law changed, so he tasked a law-enforcement agency with deciding what they wanted the law to be. This set a very dangerous precedent.

So what did the people who claimed he was a tyrant and a fascist have to say about this? Well, not much of anything. Did they scream about executive overreach? Did they complain that he bypassed Congress?

Nope. Schumer and Pelosi had pretty much nothing to say. Feinstein made a vague statement about it being a kinda/sorta good thing.

That's because it got them something they wanted, and they really didn't care HOW it happened.
 
white supremacist breakfast....
Click to expand...
You will have to explain that further in order not to be summarily discarded for the same reason -- tho' on the other side.
But if your saying what I believe you are saying, you need to read THIS.

We are a nation of Laws -- not emotion or feeling -- or we are lost.
Find an issue under the Law "unjust" ?

Change the Law

Don't simply reinterpret it your own way, to your own end,
from supposed "life experience."

That way lies madness....

ON THAT NOTE:
What ATF did... simply reinterpreting the meaning of the Law w/o regard to the clear intent/language of that Law ...is at the heart of the Chevron Deference case before the Supreme Court.

This could real interesting, real fast.
And not just for bump stocks.
 
And how would one do that with a Congress so divided?
How are they doing on immigration law?
Click to expand...
Without getting to far outside of the TOS, it is still no excuse for either making up legal interpretations that don't exist,
or totally ignoring Laws that do.

That way lies absolute madness... as both previously discussed,
and now in evidence every day in the MSM.
 
s3779m said:
I do not speak the lawyer language, I need some one to interpret. What I see here is the two problems the SCOTUS had was the ATF in effect wrote the rule. Does that leave it open to congress writing a law banning bump stocks that they would uphold?

The second problem, the SCOTUS had a problem with the claim the bump stock created a machine gun. They did not say the bump stock is protected by the second. Nor did they imply after market accessories, such as bump stocks, are protected.

Personally, I don't care for one, I can not see how it would make a rifle more accurate, reliable, only make it shoot faster. But I see a real concern that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to state that after market parts are protected, and they did not state that. Am I seeing this wrong????


https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-firearms
Click to expand...

This decision was written based on the statutes, not on constitutional grounds. A machine gun is defined in the law and according to the majority of the Court, bumpstocks do not fit the definition.

The larger issue is that ATF cannot randomly change the written statues.

That does not mean that Congress could not change the law in the future. This was made quite clear in the Justice Alito's commentary:

There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.

It is important to note that this decision is based on the definition of machine gun used in Federal law. Various state laws banning bumpstocks are not affected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top