US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks
It says the government does not have the right to ban the accessories, which were used in America's deadliest mass shooting.
You're viewing a single thread.
Twaz the way it was always going to go. There is very specific wording for what is a machine gun, and a bump stock did not meet it.
Yup. From a legal standpoint this was the right decision. Too bad the SC isn't always so punctilious in its rulings.
You can chime in on technicalities with the next Las Vegas shooting.
Sorry, I don't endorse opinions like yours who advocate for a rogue Supreme Court that disregards the law and does what it wants. Change the law if you want to ban bump stocks.
They literally ruled in one case this term with a fake situation that never happened ( 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) and then lied about the background facts in another (Kennedy v Bremerton), both in favor of "injured" Christians.
OK, so you want more of the same just because this particular case aligns with your preferences? How about demanding a SC that narrowly does its job without acting like they it gets to decide what the law is?
My comment is that this is already a rogue court when the case aligns with their beliefs.
And that's bad. We don't like that.
It's actually more of the same in this case as well, this position was just easier to defend.
Bullshit. Your finger doesn't move after the first pull. That makes it automatic by the legal definition. This is a bad ruling by "judges" who don't deserve the honor of the name.
That's not how it works. The trigger still resets after each shot with a bump stock, even if your finger doesn't move. The entire gun does, which allows the reset. While bump stocks make rapid fire easier, it still takes a bit of practice to get it to work. Still, by definition, it's not an automatic weapon.
While everyone here is allowed their own opinions on gun control, defining how a weapon works in a legal context is extremely important. The terminology needs to be very exact and definitions need to be consistent. The reason for this is because everyone has their own opinions and points of view. Those opinions need to be normalized somehow.
This comment is just about how the legal system works in general.
Pretty sure you can bump fire even without a bump stock. Wasn't there a "belt loop" trick even before bumpstocks were ever made?
Absolutely, you just hook your thumb. I've done it with an AR-15. It wouldn't be useful for hitting anything, just wastes money quicker.
Yep. My brother had an AK with a super light trigger that I could bump fire, but it wasn't easy and still was a complete waste.
But with a bump stock, you can aim fairly easily and kill 61 people!
I think you missed the point of the thread in your excitement. We are saying a bump stock is not even a requirement.
And you missed the point that the other methods have you spraying all over the place and then some.
At 500yds with an AR, shooting in the general direction at a wide area is all you are doing anyway, bump stock or not. With a single shot, you might get the expected 1.5-2 MOA if you are exceptionally good. (That is a ~10 inch circle at 500yds.) Multiple shots? Maybe 50ft^2 area after the second and then rest are probably double that. The problem is recoil. While a proper stock helps, it's not a magical solution for accuracy regardless of how the rifle is mounted. Even .223/5.56 is going to have recoil, especially during rapid fire.
For me to get a consistent .25 MOA with my 25lb benchrest rifle takes a fuck ton of practice, lots of time between shots and self-loaded, custom and expensive cartridges that are tuned specifically for my barrel. (That would translate to accuracy of 1.25in at 500 yards.)
Look. I didn't want to get into this mess in this thread, but your perception of how these things work is inaccurate. I am not getting all hurr-durr-'murica-2A here as that is not the point and not my cup of tea anyway.
If you are going to discuss these things, at least do it with the correct information.