Court Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns

[jamil]

You're missing the point. If a "Bump Stock" is banned, the ATF will argue that "Bump Firing" an AR-15 is banned. You can "Bump Fire" an AR-15 with a belt loop, a rubber band, a shoestring, or nothing whatsoever with a bit of practice and development of the skill. Therefore every semi-auto rifle is readily converted into a machinegun in a matter of seconds -- or less -- and therefore by statute, it's a machine gun because it requires NOTHING whatsoever to be a "Bump Fired" machinegun. Therefore all semi-auto rifles and shotguns are BANNED machineguns. Read the law. Anything readily converted into a machinegun is a machinegun. You're ignoring how desperate Biden and his ATF minions are to completely disarm everyone and they'll use every conceivable hook they can imagine or invent to do so.

Turns out a really fat belly can act as a sort of "bump stock"! I've seen it on YouTube! So really fat people are literally a machine gun! I am not sure I am a machine gun though. I'm fat. I'm not sure I'm fat enough to really get the bump stock action going on.

Seriously though. The solicitor general argued that belt loops and such are not machine guns when questioned about it, because belt loops don't automatically control the sequence like bump stocks do. Not a plausible rebuttal, but the justices don't know enough about it to call it ********. Point is though, their own argument excluded belt loops, rubber bands, bellies, whatever else, from being a machine gun. They're arguing about the device.

 

[jamil]

You seem to be wrapped around the axle about "rate of fire", when "rate of fire" has nothing to do with the statutory definition of a "machine gun".

"The term “machinegun” means 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 term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

In fact, this issue is the very basis of the challenge to the ATF rule: because bump stocks do not change the single-round-per-single-trigger-pull mechanism of a firearm, yet ATF "deemed" them to be a "machine gun" (definition which does include parts), because they increase the rate of fire.

I think the best argument the solicitor general could legitimately make is that bump stocks properly attached to an ar15 can make the rifle effectively fire with a high rate of fire, like a machine gun. But then if it is merely an issue of rate of fire, then they can't change the definition to include bump stocks. If this whole argument hinges on rate of fire as @gassprint1 asserts, they lose because, as you say, rate of fire is not involved in the definition of machine gun.

 

[jamil]

The 34 Firearms act, 68 GCA, and Hughs are really outdated laws. Congress should revise them or start over. It would bring legal clarity and additional revenue to the government.

Is there a Republican in congress you trust to help craft that revision? Maybe can count on one hand with all fingers present.

 

[bobzilla]

Is there a Republican in congress you trust to help craft that revision? Maybe can count on one hand with all fingers present.

Nope. Not even close.

 

[Leadeye]

Is there a Republican in congress you trust to help craft that revision? Maybe can count on one hand with all fingers present.

I wouldn't trust anybody to craft legislation unless I'm paying for it, and I think that's probably a common perception among those that do.

 

[chipbennett]

I think the best argument the solicitor general could legitimately make is that bump stocks properly attached to an ar15 can make the rifle effectively fire with a high rate of fire, like a machine gun. But then if it is merely an issue of rate of fire, then they can't change the definition to include bump stocks. If this whole argument hinges on rate of fire as @gassprint1 asserts, they lose because, as you say, rate of fire is not involved in the definition of machine gun.

This is ATF's entire argument. At least, that's my understanding, based on the last time I read their final rule.

 

[gassprint1]

The law defines what constitutes a machinegun. The bumpstock does not meet that definition. It is that simple. If the government wants to ban things that make a gun shoot faster, they need to pass a law that does that in Congress and get the President to sign it into law.

I said that in an earlier post. Someone else wants to throw other things in which dont have anything to do with what is the topic.

 

[gassprint1]

You seem to be wrapped around the axle about "rate of fire", when "rate of fire" has nothing to do with the statutory definition of a "machine gun".

"The term “machinegun” means 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 term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

In fact, this issue is the very basis of the challenge to the ATF rule: because bump stocks do not change the single-round-per-single-trigger-pull mechanism of a firearm, yet ATF "deemed" them to be a "machine gun" (definition which does include parts), because they increase the rate of fire.

I clearly state the fact that you and others just repeated.

 

[gassprint1]

I think the best argument the solicitor general could legitimately make is that bump stocks properly attached to an ar15 can make the rifle effectively fire with a high rate of fire, like a machine gun. But then if it is merely an issue of rate of fire, then they can't change the definition to include bump stocks. If this whole argument hinges on rate of fire as @gassprint1 asserts, they lose because, as you say, rate of fire is not involved in the definition of machine gun.

That was in a nutshell my reply earlier that for some reason i keep being quoted. I said the parts are not but when added ..do ..make the rifle illegal. It takes parts put together to build something or else you have ..well just parts. Not sure where my comments are being misinterpreted.

 

[chipbennett]

I clearly state the fact that you and others just repeated.

Okay, so then you should understand the point that @JAL is making. If SCOTUS lets ATF unilaterally change statutory language, such that "machine gun" is no longer defined by "one trigger pull, more than one shot", but also defined by "increased rate of fire", then ATF can use that authority to enact further rulemaking, based on that revised, statutory definition.

 

[chipbennett]

That was in a nutshell my reply earlier that for some reason i keep being quoted. I said the parts are not but when added ..do ..make the rifle illegal. It takes parts put together to build something or else you have ..well just parts. Not sure where my comments are being misinterpreted.

Not sure if it matters to the point you're making, but I think it does: the statutory definition of "machine gun" does include "parts".

 

[AndreusMaximus]

That was in a nutshell my reply earlier that for some reason i keep being quoted. I said the parts are not but when added ..do ..make the rifle illegal. It takes parts put together to build something or else you have ..well just parts. Not sure where my comments are being misinterpreted.

No, you're still missing it: a bump stock plus an AR-15 is still legal, and is still not a machinegun, according to the NFA.

The reason for this is that the NFA does NOT define a machinegun as a firearm that can fire rounds at a high rate. The NFA defines a machinegun as a firearm (or combination of parts) that can fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. A bumpstock combined with an AR15 CANNOT fire more than one round per function of the trigger.

That's why people kept bringing up all the other things that you are confused about: belt loops, string, squishy shoulders. All of those things make it easier to pull the trigger quickly, just like a bumpstock, but none of them change the fact that one round is fired with each function of the trigger, just like a bumpstock.

If we accept the premise of the ATF (and, as far as I can tell, your premise) that a bumpstock plus an AR15 equals a machinegun, because it makes it easier to fire really fast, then all those other things (belt loops, string, squishy shoulders) when combined with an AR15, would be machineguns by the same logic.

 

[jamil]

Not sure if it matters to the point you're making, but I think it does: the statutory definition of "machine gun" does include "parts".

Using the argument the SG is, a trigger, because it is a component of a machine gun, can be banned.

 

[Shibby575]

My finger is real fast..(ask your girlfriend). Does that make it a machine gun?? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Ark]

All the discussion sounded pretty grim to me. Even the conservatives seem very amenable to the NFA banning a "type" of gun, some "types" of guns being things that civilians don't need, and the ATF having the authority to classify and interpret as they please.

 

[loudgroove]

And still our founding fathers didn't call it the bill of needs. While they did include the whole pesky shall not be infringed thing.

 

[Ingomike]

Okay, so then you should understand the point that @JAL is making. If SCOTUS lets ATF unilaterally change statutory language, such that "machine gun" is no longer defined by "one trigger pull, more than one shot", but also defined by "increased rate of fire", then all agencies can use that authority to enact further rulemaking, based on that revised, statutory definition.

FIFY

 

[chipbennett]

Using the argument the SG is, a trigger, because it is a component of a machine gun, can be banned.

SG?

 

[chipbennett]

FIFY

True, though it's primarily ATF that is given the applicable regulatory rule-making authority.