SCOTUS Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

[bushmaster1313]

As with the "pistol brace" rule and the attempt by ATF to redefine "engaged in the business" this is more a ruling limiting what bureaucracies can do than a 2A issue.

Either way it's a win.

^^^ I agree.
The next big ruling in this type of case is set to come down soon. It will hopefully answer the question whether courts must defer to a regulatory agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute. It’s called “Chevron Deference” and for 40 years regulatory agencies would win these types of cases. Let’s see what happens at the Supreme Court now.

IMHO rights under the 2A are protected anytime regulatory power is diminished.

 

[biku324]

I'm going to be the envy of every prepper in my neighborhood with a bump-stocked Barrett M82A1 in a pedestal bed mount on my Silverado.

 

[rednichols]

I hear it cited as a basis for the ban that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks. I seem to recall that there were photos of bump stocks in the shooter's room, but was there any confirmation that the bump stocks were used as opposed to other full auto weapons?

Have there been other instances of alleged bump stock use that were listed as a basis for the ban?

Moderators: If this post belongs in another forum location, please move it.

Yes, the shooter had MANY semiauto rifles with the bump stocks, and for good (really, bad) reason: these rifles operating from a closed bolt caused the barrel and action to overheat, then jam. It's my understanding many/most/all his rifles were jammed. A thoroughly bad idea technically, and morally, as demonstrated by the LV massacre. The Supreme Court's decision is nothing to celebrate yet it reminds that even when we (I) don't like a decision they are hewing to the Constitution and it m/b accepted as such.

 

[pasound]

If the Vegas shooter had binary triggers, that would have been the focus and controversy. Personally I have no use for a bump stock. Plastic junk and hard to use.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Strict construction of the Constitution is required or we would be living in Venezuela. Good for SCOTUS!

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Strict construction of the Constitution is required or we would be living in Venezuela.. Good for SCOTUS!

That’s a feature and not a bug in the plans of the Left.

 

[GaryS]

You know better than that. It can't be a "technical" unless it's mounted on a Hilux.

I'm going to be the envy of every prepper in my neighborhood with a bump-stocked Barrett M82A1 in a pedestal bed mount on my Silverado.

 

[biku324]

Buy 'Murican!

 

[Well Armed]

I know that there are a lot of senior citizen gun owners who are upset by the ruling. Lol Fudds will Fudd, I suppose.

Newsflash:

1. Not all guns and gun accessories are purchased for self-defense purposes. Many are purchased for entertainment purposes and for the novelty of it all. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, although this fact it REALLY annoys some gun owners.
2. It's not your ammo! If fellow gun owners want to shoot off THEIR ammo that they spent their HARD EARNED money on, what's it to you? Why throw a bunch of negativity their way? If you don't like it, then YOU don't do it with your ammo.
3. Law enforcement, military, legal NFA machine gun owners, and gun range patreons who rent have and shoot fully automatic firearms, respectively. I noticed that the Fudds some get annoyed and/or go negative when they see the aforementioned shooting fullauto, and no one bats an eye. Oddly enough, when they see a civilian who simply wants the experience of being able to do something that the government requires $10k+ or a whole bunch of other hoops and hurtles to legally do. Not everyone has a range in their vicinity that has machines gun rentals....
4. This case at it's core had NOTHING to do to do with bumbstocks! It had to do with government overreach. The ATF, at the direction of Donald Antigun Trump, was creating law, and doing the job of Congress. This opened Pandora's Box and the floodgates for the antigun lobby and administrations to ban any and everything without any regard for Congress, voters, and public opinion. You might think bumbstocks are stupid and don't care or want to see them banned, but sooner or latter the ATF will get around to reclassifing and restricting all the FUDD guns you're personally found of. By then, it will be to late though. The proof of this phenomenon is that after bumbstocks were banned, they went after braces, certain triggers, and then private sales of firearms.

 

[sodacan]

Putting the legalities aside, things like bump stocks just give fodder to the anti-gun crowd when it tries to perpetuate the stereotypical "gun nut" persona.

 

[Well Armed]

Putting the legalities aside, things like bump stocks just give fodder to the anti-gun crowd when it tries to perpetuate the stereotypical "gun nut" persona.

Anything and everything GUN related gives "fodder" to the ANTI-gun crowd. They "perpetuate" the stereotype that we're "gun nuts" just because we own guns in the first place, and because we resist all their "common sense" Trojan horse laws meant to restrict and ban as many guns and gun accessories as possible.

 

[Rustyt1953]

 

[Greyman50]

Having fired an AR with one years ago all I can say is , go for it if one likes it. Nothing like firing a Real sub gun or MG. Realize many do not have any way to fire a real MGs but that relates to where they live.
Amazes me that so many can not understand a simple document as the 2nd Amendment. Tongue in cheek…..

 

[johngalt]

One analysis I read is that this is not a wide ruling against bumpstock bans in general, but a narrow technical ruling. In a nutshell, the code defines a machinegun using very specific language, and a bumpstock does not meet the definition.

Nothing would stop Congress from passing legislation redefining "machinegun" nor passing legislation banning bumpstocks.

But it does seem to be yet another ruling telling the administrative state they can't create law out of thin air, which is good.

 

[steelslaver]

Neither bureaucrats or administrator (even the President) should not create laws. That is the job of congress.

That said, I personally have no use for a bump stock, In fact unless being attacked up close and personal by a fair size group, I have no use for full auto. There are very few instances where fire power wins out over controlled fire.

I have had the enjoyment of firing full auto weapons. Bt, I wasn't paying for the ammo.

On the Vegas shooter, he had both the fund and the background that he could have gotten NFA stamps and bought several actual machine guns.

 

[Chuck24]

Neither bureaucrats or administrator (even the President) should not create laws. That is the job of congress.

That said, I personally have no use for a bump stock, In fact unless being attacked up close and personal by a fair size group, I have no use for full auto. There are very few instances where fire power wins out over controlled fire.

I have had the enjoyment of firing full auto weapons. Bt, I wasn't paying for the ammo.

On the Vegas shooter, he had both the fund and the background that he could have gotten NFA stamps and bought several actual machine guns.

Also had a large group of people in a confined area with very limited ability to exit or take cover. Fish in a barrel.

 

[LVSteve]

One analysis I read is that this is not a wide ruling against bumpstock bans in general, but a narrow technical ruling. In a nutshell, the code defines a machinegun using very specific language, and a bumpstock does not meet the definition.

Nothing would stop Congress from passing legislation redefining "machinegun" nor passing legislation banning bumpstocks.

But it does seem to be yet another ruling telling the administrative state they can't create law out of thin air, which is good.

^This. The SCOTUS ruling makes no difference in Nevada (so far) as the State Assembly passed a measure banning bumpstocks. Elected representatives doing what they do, unless a later SCOTUS judgement says they have no right, which won't happen.

 

[ladder13]

One analysis I read is that this is not a wide ruling against bumpstock bans in general, but a narrow technical ruling. In a nutshell, the code defines a machinegun using very specific language, and a bumpstock does not meet the definition.

Nothing would stop Congress from passing legislation redefining "machinegun" nor passing legislation banning bumpstocks.

But it does seem to be yet another ruling telling the administrative state they can't create law out of thin air, which is good.

They’re run amok for many years, good to see them get reined in some.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

I never heard of a bump stock until they tried to ban them. At this point, I favor anything that keeps the ATF in their place, too many shops have been closed for "administrative reasons" at the hands of the ATF. I do not want a bump stock, but I and others should have the right to one recognized.

 

[ladder13]

The level of “downvoting” in all these positive threads in the 2A Forum is mindboggling.