Sotomayer Doesn't Understand Guns

[Cow Poke]

roguetech is on the job!

If anybody could, me brudder!!!

[Terraceth]

Justice Thomas is an idiot, and a corrupt idiot at that. He probably has an NRA paid for vacation coming up. The Bump stock turns a semiautomatic rifle into a gun that can shoot 800 rounds a minute. I don't care what lame excuses you come up with, that's a machine gun. Common sense.

As I noted earlier, the definition of machinegun in the law is:
"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."

This definition says nothing at all about rounds per minute. That's completely irrelevant to the case. In fact, that isn't even really the argument of the dissent. (having now read the dissent and majority opinion, I do not think some of the criticisms of the dissent in this topic are quite fair, but I do ultimately find the majority opinion more persuasive)

[rogue06]

If anybody could, me brudder!!!

Supposedly a 200 round magazine:

And a 600 round one!

[Starlight]

As an aside, there is no law that will keep such devices out of the hands of those who would choose to do mass murder.
It's the age old wisdom - "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

"When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes"?

[Cow Poke]

"When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes"?

Yes, because anybody on the planet can buy a nuke.

It is LEGAL for a private citizen to have a nuke?

Seriously, Star - sometimes you say the buttdumbest things.

[Diogenes]

"When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes"?

18 U.S. Code § 831 - Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials


Also, you may be interested in the story of David Hahn.

[Starlight]

It is LEGAL for a private citizen to have a nuke?

No, and as result they don't have them.

Hence, showing the falsehood and silliness of your previous statement that if something is made illegal then criminals will have them.

Seriously, Star - sometimes you say the buttdumbest things.

Your statement was incredibly dumb, I pointed out the flaw in it, and you think I'm the dumb one. Sometimes your stupidity seems infinite.

[NorrinRadd]

Supposedly a 200 round magazine:

And a 600 round one!

Amusing take on the classic scene from "Full Metal Jacket."

[seanD]

Bump stocks are back on the rack boys as SCOTUS overturns bump stock bans. In a classic move, leftists don't understand how guns work

“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,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

Of course, she's not alone in not understanding how guns function:

The pro-gun safety group Brady United similarly denounced the ruling, saying in a statement on X: “Bump stocks essentially turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. Weapons of war should have no place in our communities.”

Thomas, of course, actually understands how guns function:

“A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does,” Thomas wrote in his opinion. “Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every ‘function of the trigger.’

Quotes per CNN

She also spread misinformation about covid. It's scary people like her make legislative decisions for the country.

[eider]

All of this is irrelevant to the actual wording of the law, which is the proper basis for non-activist court rulings.

The proper basis for court rulings is legislation, and legislation is enacted by your Congress/Senate.

And pro-life supporters should leave nerdy descriptions far behind and focus upon 'very fast firing guns' which could include all such weapons. Sotomayor obviously has got a better view of all this.

[eider]

Ah, the well known right to mass murder, in the 101st amendment.

You need to review 'Project 2025' in detail. It will shock your socks off as it proposes a relaxed access to guns as part of a revival of 'Christian' culture, law and rule across America.

MAny pro-lifers seems to be pro death.

[eider]

Who exactly would those political opponents be? This was an EO that OMB signed that was overturned. Are you saying that OMB is their political opponent?

Show up!

[eider]

Thomas' remark torpedoes your declaration.

“A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does,” Thomas wrote in his opinion. “Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every ‘function of the trigger.’

That's what both understanding firearms and the law looks like.

Don't be thick!
A Bump stock produces a 'very fast firing' gun, and any machine, bump bolt, fixed pin guns are 'very fast firing,' as well.

Next time there is a school mass shoot up you can argue the nerdy details all over again.

[Terraceth]

The proper basis for court rulings is legislation, and legislation is enacted by your Congress/Senate.

Okay, so you agree that there should be new legislation to classify bump stocks as machine guns, and that it was therefore wrong of the executive branch to essentially create its own legislation on the subject without Congress doing it?

And pro-life supporters should leave nerdy descriptions far behind and focus upon 'very fast firing guns' which could include all such weapons. Sotomayor obviously has got a better view of all this.

"Very fast firing guns" is not in the legal definition of machine gun, which doesn't say anything at all about rate of fire either. Also, the "nerdy descriptions" are what the law actually says, which you seem unaware of given your claim that "very fast firing gun" somehow makes something fit a definition that doesn't say anything at all about how fast it fires.

I want to make it clear that I have no problem whatsoever banning bump stocks. But such a thing should be done with legislation, as you seem to admit in your very own post!

[Starlight]

It seems to me Alito probably had the right of it in his concurring opinion:

There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U.S.C. §5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.

That's an interesting comment. Seems like Alito is saying that intended meaning, and actual text are different in this case. And then he's deciding to follow text over intent.

I am generally of the view that where intent can be clearly determined, courts should follow intent over a literal stilted reading of the text. So I would say Alito errs here in his decision to go with the text over intent, if we accept his own assessment of the situation.

In addition, I think traditional court deference to Agency rule interpretation is relevant in this case. Whether or not the law as passed by congress implies bump stocks count in its ban on automatic weaponry, is a bit ambiguous (as Alito says, that answer changes whether we consider its intended meaning or exact wording). But the AFT is the designated government agency for administering the law. Traditionally, courts have let the government agencies responsible have a hand in interpreting laws, and deferred to them, and I think there are a number of good reasons for doing things that way. I think the current judicial trend of more and more trying to themselves be the only arbiters of the law and never deferring to government agencies, is a foolish trend.