Posted on 02/28/2024 1:03:07 PM PST by Robert357
US Supreme Court justices grappled with the mechanics of bump stocks on Wednesday as they weighed whether to lift a ban on the gun accessory.
Fitting a bump stock to a rifle enables the weapon to fire hundreds of bullets per minute.
The Trump administration banned the devices by classifying them as machine guns after they were used in the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
Under the 1986 National Firearms Act, owning a machine gun is illegal.
But a Texas resident and gun shop owner Michael Cargill has challenged the ban on bump stocks, saying the government has interpreted what qualifies as a machine gun too broadly.
The case has now reached America's highest court.
It is illegal to modify the internal components of semi-automatic rifles - which typically manage about 60 aimed shots per minute - to make them fully automatic, but gun owners can legally buy accessories to increase the rate of fire.
The bump stock harnesses a rifle's recoil to rapidly fire multiple rounds. It replaces the weapon's stock, which is held against the shoulder, and allows the gun to slide back and forward between the user's shoulder and trigger finger. That motion - or "bump"- lets the gun fire without the user having to move their trigger finger.
At Wednesday's hearing, both liberal and conservative justices seemed to struggle with some of the more technical aspects of the case - about the function and application of bump stocks, as well as the statutes that define and ban machine guns.
Speaking to Mr Cargill's lawyer, liberal justice Elena Kagan asked how a gun with a bump stock could be differentiated from a machine gun.......
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Most importantly, BAFT said bump stocks were legal legal then reversed its position.
Personally, I have no use for a bump stock and think the entire purpose of the ban was to virtue signal by some politicians that they were doing things to humor the gun control mob. It is woke politics.
However, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Supreme Court.
Thats where I am as well.
I don’t want to have one.
I want the right to make that choice,
by having the right to want, and to have, one.
Not for its own sake, but for the sake of all other attachments which improve, to the owner’s mind, the function of his weapon.
I am in that boat with the two of you also but also say don’t give up any ground at any time. Fight them tooth and nail through every decision and keep them tied up trying to fight this rather than coming up with something else.
With the price of ammo, who can afford to use a bump stock other than Ukraine with free government ammo.
Your shoulder can be a bump stock.
“I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope! “
Donald Trump, Feb 22, 2018
Firearms Owners Protection Act, with the poisoned Hughes amendment, was in 1986. The National Firearms Act was in 1934. The Gun Control Act was 1968.
None pass even the most basic Constitutional “sniff” test due to the Pre-amble to the Bill of Rights, the text of the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and further made unConstitutional by the “privileges and immunities” clause in the 14th Amendment.
As Amendments ratified by the State legislatures, no “incorporation” is required for them to apply in any jurisdiction within the United States and the territories it governs as these are protections for Individual Rights.
Period. Full stop. End of story.
Anyone claiming otherwise has a vested interest in limiting the Rights of We the People... regardless of any excuse they give.
Government has been working diligently to make ammo MORE expensive. It’s one of the few things government actually does well...
I am surprised the BBC doesn’t have to ask what a gun is.
Me too. Get a permit/tax stamp and get the real thing. Expensive to buy one? Yup!
After hearing arguments today, I’m not sure how this will go.
5-4? Probably. Which way - I need to read the transcript to make that prediction.
Bump stocks became known after the Vegas concert massacre.
And there they went, driven by the River of Fear.
I note that only one justice even brought up the 2nd Amendment. Kavenaugh.
The 1934, 1968, and 1986 acts are blatantly unconstitutional on their face.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?533774-1/garland-v-cargill-oral-argument&live=&email=5f2f408e4bece89eaab5eafe17f34bb9ee4bc9f3&emaila=dd719047a3d7c4995506efa69e019df8&emailb=eb05c357b40fc0ce101fe5b8969014614791ec296382f4f735139f2557d09d93
Rapid fire rifles are not new.
The old Henry LEVER ACTION Repeating Rifle of 1860 was advertised to shoot SIXTY SHOTS A MINUTE!
Neal Knox, back in the late 1980s found the first planned California AW rifle ban also included lever action rifles.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/682013937292868666/
And the Evans lever action rifle held 26 shots and was advertised at 26 rounds a minute!
Gun owners gave the government an inch and they took a mile in 1934.
In 1968 the same thing again happened.
In 1986 we got some back but lost on others. The permanent ban on full auto firearms was designed to be a “poison Pill” to kill the 1986 law that would allowing the import of 5 shot bolt action rifles and rifle sales across state lines. Some decided giving up full auto to allow across state line sales of rifles and shotguns to be worth it.
I listened on cspan for a little...It sounded like even the conservatives didn’t really the technical aspects, which is key to understanding the plain language of the statute. Who knows how it shakes out but I’m not getting a positive vibe from the questions asked.
Freegards
You and I have long been in agreement on a wide variety of Constitutional issues.
Respects to you...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.