Sotomayer Doesn't Understand Guns

[Starlight]

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!

I suggest you descend from theory for a moment to realistically consider the US political situation. This congress has passed a record low number of pieces of legislation, substantially beating the record set by the previous Republican-majority do-nothing congress which passed record few pieces of legislation in US history. How likely is a ban on something to do with firearms, however warranted that ban, likely to be brought up and passed in a Republican-majority congress at the best of times, and how much less likely in a do-nothing Republican-majority congress?

At the time when the Trump administration created this ban, he probably could have gotten his congress to do it through law. Whereas at the current time there isn't a serious chance of it being done by law. I suggest you be a bit less OCD about whether the correct paperwork was done to pass this change in the truly correct way (congress vs government regulator), and consider that at the time when this change was ordered by Trump there was indeed bipartisan interest in doing it, so if the Trump admin wasn't blitheringly incompetent that it filed its paperwork badly, then the congress of that time would have passed it by law. But the congress of this time won't.

I suggest that rather than obsess over whether the change was made in the technically legally correct way, you rather consider questions such as: Was there bipartisan support for making the change at the time it was made? Is the change positive in function? Is reimplementing the change in the technically legally correct way in the present very likely? I suggest the answer to the first two questions is yes, and the third is no, and that hence that striking down the change is an exercise in OCD that is harmful to America in effect.

[eider]

Okay, so you agree that there should be new legislation to classify bump stocks as machine guns,.......................................

No! Anybody who supports civilian possession of VFF guns must be blindingly stupid!
Such people can only blame themselves if there is yet another mass killing on US soil.

"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.

All VFF gun types should be banned. BY any other name, they are Very Fast Firing guns.

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!

Then let that happen very speedily!

[CivilDiscourse]

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.

The problem is that "ambiguity" isn't an issue here. The law isn't ambiguous at all. The issue is that the law has a loophole in it. There is nothing in there that covers a device like a bumpstock. This could be oversight, or, could be the fact that the writers didn't forsee the development of a device like a bumpstock.

To use an analogy, lets sat legislation is passed to outlaw the use of slurs against the mentally disabled. (we are ignoring free speech issues here.) The law says that use of the words "retarded", "crazy", "schizo", "mental", "idiot" are all banned. Later a Movie comes out with a mentally disabled character called "Stolly". Now "Stolly" is used as a slur, the same way all the banned words were.
The law IS clear. It lists banned words. its also clear that the writers of the law would have seen no difference between the words listed and "Stolly". However since "Stolly isn't on the list of banned words, it's not banned."

In both cases, real and analogy, it's not a case of ambiguity, but just a rule that doesn't fit ironically because of the exacting text.

[CivilDiscourse]

It seems like OP is getting a bit pedantic. Looking it up... the point of a bump stock is that bump stock repeatedly pulls the trigger. Thus one human press of the trigger leads to multiple bullets, like an automatic.

Zooming out a bit, to consider whether it was sensible for SCOTUS to strike down Trump's EO here... Bump Stocks don't seem to be of much use for hunters. But they do seem to be useful to people doing mass killings of Americans. So it seems like SCOTUS has acted against Trump here, to facilitate the mass killing of Americans.

You do realize that in the world of Law and courts, pedantic is pretty part and parcel to how it operates.

[Mountain Man]

Yup. The court's duty isn't to "fix" a law but determine what the law says and means. If Congress wants to change the definition of what constitutes a full automatic weapon like machineguns, it is up to Congress to change the definition -- not the Court.

Although I am personally suspicious of this notion that Congress is allowed to create laws that slowly chip away at our right to bear arms, which is not consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the Second Amendment.

[rogue06]

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

Because a nuke is something one can put together out in the garage or print off on a computer

[rogue06]

Show up!

The SCOTUS overturned an executive order by OMB returning things to Obama's policy. So, who in your mind was the Court trying to upset?

[Diogenes]

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.

Thomas followed the actual legislation, Sotomayor didn't.

"Very fast firing guns" isn't a legal, technical, or coherent standard.

To illustrate Thomas' point about the skill of the shooter being more relevant than the actual gun:

Same guy with a bump stock and with a competition rifle.

JimL and Starlight would do well to review these videos as well.

[Mountain Man]

Then there's this guy who can change magazines in half a second:

So I guess Congress has to start outlawing certain weapon disciplines.

[seer]

Thomas followed the actual legislation, Sotomayor didn't.

Maybe they should make Jerry illegal!

[Diogenes]

So I guess Congress has to start outlawing certain weapon disciplines.

The top comment in the bump stock video:

Jerry : Bump stocks are too slow. FEDS : Jerry is illegal.

ETA: seer, I posted this after your post.

[seer]

The top comment in the bump stock video:

Jerry : Bump stocks are too slow. FEDS : Jerry is illegal.

ETA: seer, I posted this after your post.

Great minds and all that...

[eider]

Thomas followed the actual legislation, Sotomayor didn't.

"Very fast firing guns" isn't a legal, technical, or coherent standard.

To illustrate Thomas' point about the skill of the shooter being more relevant than the actual gun:

Same guy with a bump stock and with a competition rifle.

JimL and Starlight would do well to review these videos as well.

You can remember all your silly technical junk if ever a maniac goes mass killing in a school or elsewhere with a VFF gun. I couldn't care less what the mechanics or technique of such a weapon might have been.

Or maybe white puritan Christian racists are thinking of using such weapons against American citizens who have differing politics to them?

Oh dear........

[eider]

The SCOTUS overturned an executive order by OMB returning things to Obama's policy. So, who in your mind was the Court trying to upset?

How daft you are........ supporting the distribution and sales of fast firing guns to anybody with a licence to acquire them.
And what are you going to say when next their is a mass killing of Americans, or even school children? What will be your clever responses then?

[Mountain Man]

You can remember all your silly technical junk if ever a maniac goes mass killing in a school or elsewhere with a VFF gun. I couldn't care less what the mechanics or technique of such a weapon might have been.

Or maybe white puritan Christian racists are thinking of using such weapons against American citizens who have differing politics to them?

Oh dear........