Garland v. Cargill: Bump stock decision from SCOTUS

I have downloaded and saved the decision. Here's what the "wise Latina" said in her dissent:

Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of “machinegun” and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.
Click to expand...

This is actually pretty frightening. This is a Supreme Court justice, and she actually believes that the law says something that the law doesn't say. And the majority opinion explains that in detail, with diagrams to explain it in technical detail. That she (and her two compatriots who signed onto her dissent) can claim that the decision is "inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text" is incomprehensible.

She then doubles down:

The definition of “machinegun” also includes “any part designed and intended . . . for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.” Ibid. That language naturally covers devices like bump stocks, which “conver[t]” semiautomatic rifles so that a single pull of the trigger provides continuous fire as long as the shooter maintains forward pressure on the gun.
Click to expand...
{emphasis added)

There is NOTHING in the federal law that mentions either "pulling" the trigger, or maintaining forward pressure on the gun. Her reasoning (if you can call it that} is a classic example of trying to legislate from the bench. It extrapolates on what the clear and plain language of the law actually is and says, and attempts to manipulate it into saying something more than what it says.

Bottom line: since the law defines "machine gun" as a firearm that fires more than one round with a single function of the trigger, any part that converts a firearm to a machine gun must -- by definition -- be a part that changes the firearm so it fires more than one round with a single function of the trigger. Bump stocks don't do that. Bump stocks just facilitate rapidly repeating the function of the trigger to fire multiple single shots in rapid succession.
 
And to make the confusion worse, there are ignorant talking heads who don't understand the subject matter, and the way firearms work, such as MSNBC host Michael Steele, who thinks a bump fire stock lets you fire 800 rounds a minute.

Ignorance?? or intentional disinformation???

Anyone who thinks someone can fire 800 rounds in a single minute from a man portable shoulder fired weapon is ignorant of how these things actually work.

A full auto with a cyclic rate of 800rpm MIGHT make it from a fixed position firing a single continuous 800 rnd belt in one long burst. A water cooled Browning machine gun could do that.

A box magazine fed full auto cannot even come close. And a bump fire stock equipped semi auto will not quite get there, either.

There is a huge difference between the cyclic rate of fire, (the speed the action cycles at) and the actual rate of fire that can be fired in a single minute.

Take, for example, the M16 with a listed cyclic rate of 700-900 rounds per minute. 800 is smack in the middle of the range, so lets use that.

800rpm. Using magazines that hold 30 rnds, the gun fires the mag empty in slightly less than 3 seconds. Now, the shooter has to 1)realize the gun is empty, 2) eject the empty magazine, 3) insert a full magazine, then 4)release the bolt, and then, 5) pull the trigger. That's a couple seconds right there. SO, say, for everyone who is fast enough (and not a lot of people are that fast) 5 seconds to fire, and reload and resume firing. And, that not counting the time needed to get each fresh full magazine from a pouch and into the gun.

SO, perhaps a fast enough guy could fire 12 magazines in 60 seconds (not likely but not impossible). 12 30 rnd magazines is 360 rnds, a huge amount yes, but less than HALF of 800rpm.

800 rounds FIRED in a minute from a bump fire stocked semi auto?? OMG:eek::eek::eek:!!! :rolleyes:

its BS. and only said to scare people into thinking its reality. Its not.
 
I intentionally did not attempt to factor in heat, either in regard to the weapon function, or the shooter's ability to HOLD the weapon as it heats up.

Just one more thing the yammerheads spouting lies have little or no awareness of.
 
Isn't this the reason that heat Shields were specifically listed under assault weapon bans? Heat shields would permit you to shoot faster without burning yourself on the hot Gun Barrel??
 
^^^

First video just happens to have comments turned off. Isn't that just special? Throw out a bunch of irrational garbage, and turn off comments to that nobody can point out how irrational your ravings are.
 
Handguards, forearms, forestocks.... we've always had them.

But "barrel shrouds"... well they sound evil... and look evil.
(Clothes make the man don'cha know....)

It's all about appearances these days,
and near-willful ignorance.
 
Heat shields, barrel shrouds, forward pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs along with several other features were deemed "evil" and made into features banned under the assault weapon law.

Some of the reasoning they used was more than just speculative, it was totally fictional, Flash suppressors banned because there was a NATO rifle grenade (that the US never used) made to fit over the flash suppressor, and since one can get these things off the shelf at every 7-11 store, (intentional sarcasm here) they got banned.

Never understood the reasoning for the bayonet lug, though. I guess it was due to all the drive by bayonettings...:rolleyes:

I'm truly surprised the atf haven't tried to redefine earplugs as suppressors.
Click to expand...

My guess would be because they are not attached to the firearm. Otherwise, I think they would try. :rolleyes:

The bumpfire stock idea was submitted to the ATF for classification (during the Obama administration) and was approved for sale to the general public, because it did not meet the legal definition of a restricted item (such as a machine gun).

Then, several years later, one was used in a mass shooting, and that stirred up a lot of angst, so the then current administration (Trump) ordered the ATF to do something. What the ATF did was, on their own authority, and with no change to the law, reclassify a formerly legal and unregulated firearm accessory as a machine gun, and give those who possessed such items a narrow range of options to avoid Federal prosecution.

SCOTUS, has ruled, correctly, I think, that the ATF did not have the legal authority to do that.

Wonder where they'll take us, next?
 
Sotomayor seems to be angling to be the new John Paul Stevens in that she seems to be the dissenter most willing to use, to put it politely, "creative" reasoning to get to the conclusion she wants. Whether or not a bump-stock or any other accessory turns a semi-automatic firearm into "functionally" a machine gun is irrelevant. Thomas and the rest of the majority made the correct decision for two reasons.

1. A machine gun is, legally, very specifically defined and bump stocks do not meet that specific definition ergo, bump stocks are not illegal.

2. Because a machine gun is so specifically legally defined and ATF does not have the power to make or change law (only congress can do that) then ATF does not have the authority without an act of congress to redefine what is or is not a machine gun including bump stocks.

It seems to me that Sotomayor is attempting to argue that while bump stocks may not violate the letter of the law, they violate its spirit or intent. While this is probably true, the letter of the law is all that really matters as there have been plenty of people convicted and sent to prison who, while complying with the spirit or intent of the law, violated its letter, often unintentionally. A situation where one can comply with the letter of a law, rule, or regulation but completely contradict is intention or vice-versa is a classic case of unintended consequences and the fault for such a situation rests not with the people who take advantage of it or are victimized by it, but squarely on the shoulders of the people who made such poorly thought out laws, rules, or regulations.

Actually, Sotomayor's argument brings up another point that I doubt she meant to, but I think is worthy of exploration. If the NFA's prohibitions on machine guns (bump stocks, binary triggers, forced-reset triggers), and short-barrel rifles and shotguns (pistol braces) are so easily side-stepped, then of what use is the NFA? If we suppose for a moment that Sotomayor is correct in that bump-stocks turn semi-automatic weapons "functionally if not legally" into machine guns or that pistol braces turn handguns "functionally if not legally" into short-barreled rifles, then why do we not have motorized bandits running amok and blood running in the streets? What I think Sotomayor and others like her haven't thought about is that her "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" argument cuts both ways. If you can so easily have something that creates a "functional equivalent" to an NFA item yet we don't seem to have the problems that the NFA is supposed to prevent, they why are NFA items worth regulating to begin with?
 
I heard Just Sotomayor wrote in her decent that these bump stocks are placed on commonly used everyday rifles to make them shoot like machine guns . All I can say to that is “Thank you justice Sotomayor “ you have just confirmed modern sporting rifles are commonly used and are not machine guns . This should help us defeat these so-called AW bans . oops haha
 
I downloaded the complete decision. I admit that I didn't read all of Thomas's majority opinion -- I skipped ahead to Sotomayor's dissent. Basically, it shows that she doesn't know how to read plain English. The definition of a machine gun is that it fires more than one round with a single "function of the trigger."

Sotomayor:

As long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger on the finger rest and maintains constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel or front grip, the weapon will fire continuously.
...
A bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle is a machinegun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a “single function of the trigger” means a reset of the trigger mechanism. Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.
Click to expand...

So, in essence, she can't comprehend the difference between a single function of the trigger, and a single function of the finger.
 
I can’t wait for lawyers to file briefs in other cases using her backward logic against her by sighting her own words against her .
 
Recycled bullet said:
Is Justice Sotomayor demonstrating constructive ignorance?
Click to expand...
I would say, "Yes, she is."

Justice Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican ancestry. She was born in New York to Puerto Rican parents, so we don't know if English is her first or second language. (However, her father didn't speak English, so we can draw some conclusions as to which language was probably spoken in the home.) Either way, she graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School so she should have a functional knowledge of the English language. For her to claim that the "plain language" of a law that specifically addresses the function of a mechanical device "must" include the function of a part of the human anatomy demonstrates either a remarkable ignorance of the English language, or an intention to misinterpret, misapply, and obfuscate the issue.
 
There are a couple of influences that would help to explain all three dissenting votes.

First, none of them are gun people. Gorsuch may have spent some time outdoors and been around some arms, and Scalia did a bit of that too. However, for the most part this would be like explaining direct injection engines to nine amish people. FWIW, the questions from the majority during oral argument weren't free of confusion either. Thomas tried some initial clarifying questions, but they didn't seem to do the trick.

Other than fidelity to the original accepted meaning of the text, what would be the benefit to Kagan, Jackson or Sotomayor of understanding and accepting that meaning?

In 2010, Sotomayor was on the court and in the face of a draconian state restriction didn't see the individual right described in Heller as fundamental or a proper subject of incorporation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top