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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, I think too many people actually want that.
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.
To be fair, the supreme court has also gotten in the habit of making decisions based on outcomes rather than principles
Only when they agree with the actions.
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.
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”.
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.