Running SCOTUS thread

Neutral Corner · Jun 14, 2024

MileHigh said: ↑

Bump stock case is out.

SCOTUS blog: The question in this case is whether a bumpstock (an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger to fire very quickly) converts the rifle into a machinegun. The court holds that it does not.

6-3.
Click to expand...

Yup. But try to get past the metal detectors and inside a courthouse with a gun.

Neutral Corner · Jun 14, 2024

MileHigh said: ↑

This is *not* a Second Amendment case, but instead a statutory interpretation case -- whether a bumpstock meets the statutory definition of a machinegun. The ATF in 2018 issued a rule, contrary to its earlier guidance that bumpstocks did not qualify as machineguns, defining bumpstocks as machineguns and ordering owners of bumpstocks to destroy them or turn them over to the ATF within 90 days.

The Thomas opinion explains that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" because it does not fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" as the statute requires.
Click to expand...

Time to rewrite the law to define this better... and see it die in the House.

Inky_Wretch · Jun 14, 2024

MileHigh said: ↑

This is *not* a Second Amendment case, but instead a statutory interpretation case -- whether a bumpstock meets the statutory definition of a machinegun. The ATF in 2018 issued a rule, contrary to its earlier guidance that bumpstocks did not qualify as machineguns, defining bumpstocks as machineguns and ordering owners of bumpstocks to destroy them or turn them over to the ATF within 90 days.

The Thomas opinion explains that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" because it does not fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" as the statute requires.
Click to expand...

Having fired a bump stock-equipped AR, it might technically be semi-auto but you damn sure don't know it when you're ripping through 30 rounds in about 1.5 seconds.

MileHigh · Jun 14, 2024

Inky_Wretch said: ↑

Having fired a bump stock-equipped AR, it might technically be semi-auto but you damn sure don't know it when you're ripping through 30 rounds in about 1.5 seconds.
Click to expand...

In her dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, Sotomayor write that "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."

BitterYoungMatador2 · Jun 14, 2024

Clarence Thomas just arrived to give his opinion.

BTExpress · Jun 14, 2024

Sotomayor needed to come up with a better dissent. These are not ducks:

Inky_Wretch · Jun 14, 2024

They also don't look like ducks.

goalmouth · Jun 14, 2024

Kavanaugh thinks "bump stock" is how a full keg gets to the register.

outofplace · Jun 14, 2024

Inky_Wretch said: ↑

Live Updates: Supreme Court Upholds Broad Access to Abortion Pill

It seems the unanimous verdict was due to a lack of standing of the plaintiffs. So once the plaintiffs find the right person to file the suit ...
Click to expand...

Yup, and it offers a little cover for the conservative rulings on the big stuff.

outofplace · Jun 14, 2024

MileHigh said: ↑

In her dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson, Sotomayor write that "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...

Why would the majority apply logic in this way when they have enough cover to rule the other way?

Thoughts, prayers, and more dead bodies.

Kato · Jun 14, 2024

I don't understand how this is even a 2A case. It's not a ban on a gun. It's a ban on an accessory for a gun.

Twirling Time · Jun 14, 2024

Kato said: ↑

I don't understand how this is even a 2A case. It's not a ban on a gun. It's a ban on an accessory for a gun.
Click to expand...

MileHigh said: ↑

This is *not* a Second Amendment case, but instead a statutory interpretation case -- whether a bumpstock meets the statutory definition of a machinegun. The ATF in 2018 issued a rule, contrary to its earlier guidance that bumpstocks did not qualify as machineguns, defining bumpstocks as machineguns and ordering owners of bumpstocks to destroy them or turn them over to the ATF within 90 days.

The Thomas opinion explains that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" because it does not fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" as the statute requires.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Running SCOTUS thread

Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

goalmouth Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Kato Well-Known Member

Twirling Time Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Running SCOTUS thread

Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

goalmouth Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Kato Well-Known Member

Twirling Time Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches