• @fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1810 months ago

      You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It’s been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn’t actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn’t really change anything other than one less law to enforce.

      Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.

    • @NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      1310 months ago

      No they don’t (well… they do, but not for this). Bump stocks are a stupid gimmick that were only ever banned in the first place to appease low-information hysterical types.

    • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      710 months ago

      No they don’t. Lawmakers do, for failing to pass a law banning bump stocks. What exactly do you think is the role of a judge?

  • @mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    5210 months ago

    As I said in the other thread… This wasn’t a merits decision as to “bumpstocks good” or “bumpstocks bad”. The point was that machine guns have a statutory definition. Bumpstocks did not fit that definition. Trump tried to use executive order to essentially amend the law all by himself to revise the practical implementation of that definition. That’s not how the US works. If the president wants bumpstocks banned, he must use political capital to lobby congress to pass a bill, then sign the bill if it makes it that far.

    To everyone whining about the outcome of this particular case, imagine unilateral executive authority applied to every area of American life, and realize what you are wishing for.

      • @mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        1410 months ago

        People have gotten in the habit of cheering on court rulings based on outcome, rather than any defining principles. I’ve been trying to encourage people to imagine the shoe is on the other foot and their political enemies are in charge, before contemplating expansion of federal powers.

        • androogee (they/she)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          To be fair, the supreme court has also gotten in the habit of making decisions based on outcomes rather than principles

    • Liz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      410 months ago

      In my opinion, a bumpstock does actually fit the definition of a machine gun, because the user-action to fire multiple shots in a row is one continuous action. Your finger becomes a part of the mechanical function of the gun and the trigger is pressed by pushing the handguard forward.

      • @mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Problem is… by that definition, pants beltloops are also machineguns because you can bumpfire just as easily from those, and through exactly the same combined “mechanical function”.

        • Liz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          810 months ago

          And if you attach a string to an M1 carbine just right it also becomes a machine gun. Constructive intent and the ability to enforce the law matter. We’re never going to be able to ban strings or belt loops, and neither are produced or owned with the intent of building a machine gun, but a bump stock is clearly a purpose built device intended to turn a rifle into a machine gun and it’s comparatively easy to enforce prohibition on such a specialized part.

    • @ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      710 months ago

      It’s incredibly fucking stupid to use these things for anything other than indiscriminate area effect, which equates only to spraying into a crowd in any realistic civilian context.

      This is what really pains me is the bump stock is a device whose only real purpose is to hurt a large group of people with no regard to who is in that area. No one is going to be out on the white house lawn mowing down zombie hordes with this thing. Its primary intent is to hurt civilians.

  • BombOmOm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4710 months ago

    Twaz the way it was always going to go. There is very specific wording for what is a machine gun, and a bump stock did not meet it.

    • Pistcow
      link
      fedilink
      2110 months ago

      You can chime in on technicalities with the next Las Vegas shooting.

      • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        2910 months ago

        Sorry, I don’t endorse opinions like yours who advocate for a rogue Supreme Court that disregards the law and does what it wants. Change the law if you want to ban bump stocks.

        • @BajaTacos@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          1310 months ago

          They literally ruled in one case this term with a fake situation that never happened ( 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) and then lied about the background facts in another (Kennedy v Bremerton), both in favor of “injured” Christians.

          • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            1710 months ago

            OK, so you want more of the same just because this particular case aligns with your preferences? How about demanding a SC that narrowly does its job without acting like they it gets to decide what the law is?

            • @BajaTacos@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              1010 months ago

              My comment is that this is already a rogue court when the case aligns with their beliefs.

              • Liz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                210 months ago

                And that’s bad. We don’t like that.

            • @takeda@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              210 months ago

              It’s actually more of the same in this case as well, this position was just easier to defend.

    • @cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      1810 months ago

      Yup. From a legal standpoint this was the right decision. Too bad the SC isn’t always so punctilious in its rulings.

    • @ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      Bullshit. Your finger doesn’t move after the first pull. That makes it automatic by the legal definition. This is a bad ruling by “judges” who don’t deserve the honor of the name.

      • @remotelove@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        1310 months ago

        That’s not how it works. The trigger still resets after each shot with a bump stock, even if your finger doesn’t move. The entire gun does, which allows the reset. While bump stocks make rapid fire easier, it still takes a bit of practice to get it to work. Still, by definition, it’s not an automatic weapon.

        While everyone here is allowed their own opinions on gun control, defining how a weapon works in a legal context is extremely important. The terminology needs to be very exact and definitions need to be consistent. The reason for this is because everyone has their own opinions and points of view. Those opinions need to be normalized somehow.

        This comment is just about how the legal system works in general.

        • @Gigasser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          910 months ago

          Pretty sure you can bump fire even without a bump stock. Wasn’t there a “belt loop” trick even before bumpstocks were ever made?

          • @EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            610 months ago

            Absolutely, you just hook your thumb. I’ve done it with an AR-15. It wouldn’t be useful for hitting anything, just wastes money quicker.

            • @remotelove@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              410 months ago

              Yep. My brother had an AK with a super light trigger that I could bump fire, but it wasn’t easy and still was a complete waste.

              • Pistcow
                link
                fedilink
                110 months ago

                But with a bump stock, you can aim fairly easily and kill 61 people!

                • @remotelove@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  410 months ago

                  I think you missed the point of the thread in your excitement. We are saying a bump stock is not even a requirement.

      • @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That could happen with any gun loud enough, could even be a bolt action.

        Suppressors are basic safety equipment, though, just ask France. Hell in some places in europe they’re required to hunt to cut down on noise polution.

        Since we have the NFA here which likes to pretend they’re only tools for super murder assassins like Golgo 13 because they’re so quiet they absorb sound like a black hole absorbs light (/s), we have active/passive ear protection instead.

        I’d recommend the use of this basic safety equipment while doing anything loud, especially firing guns, unless unable due to it being a surprise self defense situation during which it becomes an acceptable risk.

      • @curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        You joke, but I litterally know a guy who recently completely lost his hearing from firing his AR without hearing protection.

        • How many rounds did he fire before losing his hearing entirely?

          I ask because I have fired thousands of rounds, probably even tens of thousands of rounds through AR platforms without wearing hearing protection (while in service), and I only have mild hearing damage.

              • @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                310 months ago

                Except the fact that most indoor ranges have employees and rules and RSOs, you’re not allowed in the bays without ears and eyes already on specifically because of this.

                I’m betting that if his story is true, it was indoors but not on a real range. Maybe home defense or just being a dumb shit in a homemade basement range or something.

  • @ObamaBinLaden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1310 months ago

    I’ll preface this by saying I’m not American so the point of this isn’t a statement on seconds amendment. What I do not understand is, why would citizens be so obsessed by this format of firearms that it would make it all the way to the supreme court.

    • AlexanderESmith
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      I give it a few days. It might have already happened, I haven’t been checking the news today.

  • @bender223@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    810 months ago

    Another indication that the US gov doesn’t care to even mitigate mass shootings or school shootings. The most important thing is that gun manufacturers make money.

  • @randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    3
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Now if they would just ban financial bump stocks, a.k.a. penny stocks, which contributed as much to the las vegas shooting as gun bump stocks did.

    • Liz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      I don’t know much about finance, but how would you ban cheap-ass stocks?