However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:
The term “machine gun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.
If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.
If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation. Those powers extend only so far as the passed legislation delegates them and no further. Even in cases where it seems like it would be useful, or the name of the agency suggests it would be something in their sphere of influence.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation.
Nitpick: rule making power does belong to executive agencies (at least until this SCOTUS decides to reverse Chevron deference). Law-making power resides solely with Congress.
What this means, as you suggest, is that Congress sets up statutory bounds within law, then the responsible executive agencies create rules interpreting them and defining how they’ll be enforced. Where cases like this one go wrong is when the agency oversteps the bounds of the law as passed by Congress. At that point, the agency has engaged in creating new law rather than rules, which is why the courts swat them down.
I agree with your overall gist, just feel that’s an important distinction to understand the situation.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.
This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited.
Incorrect.
It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition is provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.
Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger requirement.
However, many states do restrict this. Like mine thankfully. Crank operated firearms, like a Gatling gun, is legal though however federally. Which, yes, scratches the surface of my issues with gun legislation. Don’t get me started on short barreled rifles vs “pistol”.
While many in the US have one or more gun, I would argue most were unaware of bump stocks until the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. TL;DR, a bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle as a “spring” to help pull the trigger over and over again - effectively behaving like a “machine gun.” As already stated, it does not meet the US legal definition of a machine gun because you’re still firing one round per trigger pull. The bump stock basically makes the trigger pull automatic.
As for why it’s a big debate, read the wiki article. One guy killed A LOT of people pretty quickly using this device to greatly increase his rate of fire. It was a public eye opener for much of the country. So much so, that even Donald f’ing Trump came to the realization that something should be don. He didn’t even really get much push back on it from the right or the NRA. That’s how sobering the massacre was. That said, it happened long enough ago that it’s memory probably isn’t powerful enough for anyone to change the law to ban them and similar mechanisms (see: the binary trigger elsewhere in the comments). If they tried banning them today, the NRA and conservatives would fight it tooth and nail.
This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:
I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.
If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.
If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.
They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation. Those powers extend only so far as the passed legislation delegates them and no further. Even in cases where it seems like it would be useful, or the name of the agency suggests it would be something in their sphere of influence.
Nitpick: rule making power does belong to executive agencies (at least until this SCOTUS decides to reverse Chevron deference). Law-making power resides solely with Congress.
What this means, as you suggest, is that Congress sets up statutory bounds within law, then the responsible executive agencies create rules interpreting them and defining how they’ll be enforced. Where cases like this one go wrong is when the agency oversteps the bounds of the law as passed by Congress. At that point, the agency has engaged in creating new law rather than rules, which is why the courts swat them down.
I agree with your overall gist, just feel that’s an important distinction to understand the situation.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.
This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.
Incorrect.
It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition is provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.
Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger requirement.
The solution is to change the text of the law.
However, many states do restrict this. Like mine thankfully. Crank operated firearms, like a Gatling gun, is legal though however federally. Which, yes, scratches the surface of my issues with gun legislation. Don’t get me started on short barreled rifles vs “pistol”.
For a non-american, non-knowledgeable on gun person, I’ve seen the bump stock discussion a few times this week.
Why is it a discussion? What difference does a bumpstock do?
While many in the US have one or more gun, I would argue most were unaware of bump stocks until the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. TL;DR, a bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle as a “spring” to help pull the trigger over and over again - effectively behaving like a “machine gun.” As already stated, it does not meet the US legal definition of a machine gun because you’re still firing one round per trigger pull. The bump stock basically makes the trigger pull automatic.
As for why it’s a big debate, read the wiki article. One guy killed A LOT of people pretty quickly using this device to greatly increase his rate of fire. It was a public eye opener for much of the country. So much so, that even Donald f’ing Trump came to the realization that something should be don. He didn’t even really get much push back on it from the right or the NRA. That’s how sobering the massacre was. That said, it happened long enough ago that it’s memory probably isn’t powerful enough for anyone to change the law to ban them and similar mechanisms (see: the binary trigger elsewhere in the comments). If they tried banning them today, the NRA and conservatives would fight it tooth and nail.
Thanks for the context and explanation. It is appreciated.