Supreme Court lifts Trump's ban on bump stocks

[DukeTrout]

@simonize

Well the SC ruled that since the law that the ATF regulation was intended to enforce referred to a single action of the trigger, bump stocks weren’t covered. Again, a minor change in the law to bring bump stocks under the NFA would be a minor change, but the problem is that the current extreme polarization of the politics of guns in America make that change unlikely.

Bullshit. They would just find a different excuse.

[Kilkrazy]

It’s ironic that perhaps the only good thing Trump did in his 4 years has been overturned by his pet stuffed supreme court.

[anon29537550]

OT, and been said before, but i really thank you for explaining legal issues at a level that even an unfrozen caveman country pediatrician can understand. That’s truly a talent. Thank you!

[chenille]

On the source of the diagrams.

The Group Helping the Supreme Court Rewrite America’s Gun Laws Is Worse Than...

[anon61221983]

@Scientist

Fuck the definitions. Let’s have a government that values human lives over technicalities.

@anon29537550

unfrozen caveman country pediatrician

[ficuswhisperer]

@Scientist

Fuck the definitions. Let’s have a government that values human lives over technicalities.

But that’s what the legislature is for! The judicial branch just interprets the existing laws! /s

[RickMycroft]

Albatross (@Albatross@mastodon.sdf.org)

But in 2017 a lunatic murdered 60 people in Las Vegas, and that got the bump-stock firearm he used banned for seven whole years until yesterday. #Ammosexuals #guncontrol #Scotus

[navarro]

my two biracial grandsons, as well as their african-american mother, all have concealed carry permits here in texas. of course, per the abbott of austin, all texans without a felony record can carry openly or concealed with no permit. they got the permits just to be safer.

@KathyPartdeux

It’s an attack on regulatory authority that has been part and parcel of governance forever.

forward march to the lochner era!

@Mister44

. . .

But if you want to properly regulate . . .

this part, this is the crux of the matter that at least three of the supremes absolutely want to destroy the regulatory state and two more are lochner adjacent. even if one looks at the case as a gun case, it’s still a dreadful decision on the merits.

oh, and pro tip: don’t call a device which killed dozens of actual humans a “crappy novelty”. it’s a terrible look.

@Mister44

I get you don’t like the outcome, but I completely disagree with the framing.

frame it as a quick-step on the march back to the lochner era. unfortunately, half the “conservative” justices have made it impeccably clear that they are part of a corrupt majority. i get that you approve of this outcome but you don’t get to frame it.

[KathyPartdeux]

@navarro

lochner

“In his confirmation hearings to become Chief Justice, John Robertssaid: “You go to a case like the Lochner case, you can read that opinion today and it’s quite clear that they’re not interpreting the law, they’re making the law.” He added that the Lochner court substituted its own judgment for the legislature’s findings.“

I don’t even…

[gatto]

apparently he meant he was jealous

[anonymaus]

@danimagoo

I think it’s also worth noting that it wasn’t the Biden Administration’s ATF that banned bump stocks. It was Trump’s. This ban had bipartisan support.

I wonder if Trump remembers that, or if he will be claiming that SCOTUS just overturned an overreaching Biden or Obama EO?

[ficuswhisperer]

Something something “aCtIvIsT jUdGeS”

[danimagoo]

I don’t know, but I saw a lot of headlines that were describing the decision as a “blow to the Biden Administration.” I know the Biden Administration supports the ban, but they didn’t enact it.

[Kilkrazy]

Biden is against gun massacres. This decision makes them much easier to perpetrate. Thus violent crime stats will rise, making him look bad.

[danimagoo]

@Kilkrazy

Biden is against gun massacres.

I don’t think anyone is for gun massacres. And if violent crime stats rise as a result of this decision (which is actually unlikely…mass shootings, even though they are way too common, are still noise in the overall crime statistics in the US), that won’t be on Biden, but on the Court. And my point is that this isn’t a blow to the Biden Administration because (a) the Trump Administration enacted the bump stock ban, and (b) the bump stock ban had, at the time, broad support from politicians in both parties, and (c) the bump stock ban still has broad bipartisan support of voters from both parties. Characterizing this as a blow to the Biden Administration is more bullshit from mainstream media that is determined to make Biden seem as bad, or even worse, than Trump.

[chenille]

@danimagoo

I don’t think anyone is for gun massacres

I don’t know that I’d go that far. Not that it changes your point but stochastic terrorism really does have more than its share of supporters.

[jimr1603]

Yet another piece of evidence that Originaism isn’t a coherent judicial philosophy, but a figleaf to justify poor rulings.

[jerwin]

Various gun reddits were saying things like

“Bump stocks are stupid. I’d much rather have a silencer, a pistol brace, or a short barreled rifle, but it’s great that the ATF has been cowed.”

“I’d much rather have a real machine gun that I can aim”

"This video proves the ATF was lying when they said the las vegas shooter used a bump stock. False Flag!

However, I am predisposed to think of gun afficianados as whack jobs, so my cherrypicking may have been biased,.

[danimagoo]

@chenille

Not that it changes your point but stochastic terrorism really does have more than its share of supporters.

Fair enough.

@jerwin

Various gun reddits

Well…yeah. Reddit is gonna reddit. It has become the cesspool of the Internet with a few, very small oases of subs that aren’t completely awful.

[navarro]

@danimagoo

I don’t think anyone is for gun massacres.

especially with respect to the nra and the u.s. g.o.p. death cult
citation needed