Jump to content

Cargill v Garland: U.S. Supreme Court rules ATF bumpstock ban unconstitutional


steveTA84

Recommended Posts

On 6/14/2024 at 10:16 AM, EdDinIL said:

The ruling uses the Congressionally-defined technical details of what constitutes a machine gun, yet Justice Sotomayor and groups like Everytown throw out the term machine gun to fit their own let's-scare-the-public-into-action words.

 

And then that one quote from Justice Sotomayor about rifles being commonly available.  *insert happy dance gif here*

It's the same as when Rep. Nadler argued that ""assault weapons"" should be banned "precisely because they're common," or something along those lines.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:06 AM, yurimodin said:

so if the bumpstock itself is protected then so is the semi-auto its attached to.

The bump stock isn't protected under 2A yet, but Justice Sotomayor's dissent went a long way towards helping the AR-15 reach that status.  As noted previously, Justice Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:22 AM, EdDinIL said:

The bump stock isn't protected under 2A yet, but Justice Sotomayor's dissent went a long way towards helping the AR-15 reach that status.  As noted previously, Justice Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks. 

I'm unfortunately amazed at how bad a pick Alito was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:22 AM, EdDinIL said:

Justice Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks.

 

I would characterize it as Alito pointing out that the Legislative Branch still has means to try and ban them, if they can find the will to do so.  That does not mean that it would conclusively be constitutional -- the question of if they are protected by the 2nd amendment was not in front of the court and thus was not decided one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:34 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I'm unfortunately amazed at how bad a pick Alito was. 

Because he provided that road map?  I'm glad he said what he did.  He basically told a whining child what to do about the problem, if it could be done.  What he didn't say, and likely couldn't say, was how SCOTUS would respond to a legislative attempt to ban bump stocks.  

 

Edit - That's basically what Upholder said.

Edited by EdDinIL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:06 AM, yurimodin said:

so if the bumpstock itself is protected then so is the semi-auto its attached to.

 

Correct. 

 

While the ruling wasn't as great as I hoped we got a few gems in there.  

 

The first was the huge error by Justice Sotobeetus calling AR15 commonly available.  

 

The second was that even with a bump stock, the court determined that an AR 15 is not a machine gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:53 AM, John Q Public said:

SO they pass it and another 5yrs to get it thrown out on 2nd and that's if the court hasn't changed. It should have been a 2nd challenge from the jump.

 

The more I read this decision the more I like it. Initially I was a bit /meh, but now I see good stuff our side can use right away. 

 

That first paragraph and Sotomayor's dissent are huge.  In fact, the rate of fire argument that the antis have been using also looks to have been addressed by the court in this decision.

 

While IANAL, I think the those 3 points that the Justices made are enough to go for a motion on summary judgement and bypass the 7th's military test. 

 

Semi-autos are not machine guns. Semi-autos aren't machine guns even with a bump stock.  

Semi-autos, like used by the Las Vegas shooter, are commonly available. (Sotomayor's  dissent)

Rate of fire doesn't determine if a firearm is a machine gun. It is based on the mechanical operation of the firearm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 11:22 AM, EdDinIL said:

The bump stock isn't protected under 2A yet, but Justice Sotomayor's dissent went a long way towards helping the AR-15 reach that status.  As noted previously, Justice Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks. 

 

I can't help but wonder if that was more about the Chevron deference case. Not sure if he his spiking or swiping though. Kind of makes me wonder how that one will go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bigger part of this is that we now have the SCOTUS saying that the ATF can't just make stuff up and twist definitions...  For decades we have seen the ATF change the rules and twist definitions to push their agenda, now we have a huge silver bullet to go after all those decades of twisting definitions and morphing rules into new rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 5:01 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I still think Alito ... it up

"Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks." 

If you can ban certain kinds of stocks you can ban certain certain types other firearm parts. 

 

He said that, but didn't say that a ban would be constitutional. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2024 at 5:01 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I still think Alito ... it up

"Alito's concurrence pointed out it's still legislatively possible to ban bump stocks." 

If you can ban certain kinds of stocks you can ban certain certain types other firearm parts. 

 

I honestly think you are reading too much into it, as some others have said, Chevron is almost certainly going down, the writing is now clearly on the wall... Alito's comments align with that no more Chevron future, and he is just telling the alphabet agency that it's Congress's job to change the black-and-white definition of laws if they want them changed, not something an alphabet agency can do on a whim...  At the end of the day, it's legislatively possible for Congress to pass any law even unconstitutional ones (they do it all the time) it was not a green light telling Congress that a bump stock ban would be found Constitutional if they authored such ban... Alito was just telling the alphabet agency that it's Congress's job to change the law, not theirs... Constitutionally of any ban is a question for another day when the black and white text of this hypothetical ban may be authored...

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2024 at 9:29 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Why the f... did he say anything.  I think that opens the door to more BS laws we will have to fight again.  

 

Because he is who he is, plus I think the Supreme Court is at a point where they realize if they don't reinforce their ruling with 10 other rulings the lower courts don't 'get it' so with Chevron looming (and as we have seen with a few other rulings) the Court is putting the dots on the "i"s and crossing the "t"s trying to send the message to the lower courts (like a broken record) that it's Congress and only Congress's job to make and change laws and that alphabet agency rules/regulations/twisted interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer carry any force of law and should not be treated as law and courts should read the plain text of the law as authored by Congress, not the spun interpretation by an alphabet agency... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...