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

[MrTriple]

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.

[starwatcher]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:09 AM, steveTA84 said:

 

 

I'll giggle when I read McGlynn's decision using a quote from Sotomayor.

[THE KING]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:22 AM, starwatcher said:

 

I'll giggle when I read McGlynn's decision using a quote from Sotomayor.

🤣🤣 yep wouldn't that be awesome. 

[steveTA84]

Sotomayor messed up even more lol 

 

 

[yurimodin]

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

[springfield shooter]

On 6/14/2024 at 10:22 AM, starwatcher said:

 

I'll giggle when I read McGlynn's decision using a quote from Sotomayor.

 

[EdDinIL]

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. 

[SiliconSorcerer]

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. 

[2smartby1/2]

Happy Friday!

Happy Father's day weekend!

 

What great news (especially with the brace ban news as well!)

[Upholder]

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.

[EdDinIL]

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.

[John Q Public]

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.

[Upholder]

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

SO they pass it

 

That's a massive hurdle that is by no means fait accompli.  We have plenty to worry about today without borrowing tomorrow's trouble when that trouble may never come.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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. 

[yurimodin]

On 6/14/2024 at 12:03 PM, Dumak_from_arfcom said:

Justice Sotobeetus

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[starwatcher]

If I'm understanding this correctly, bump stocks can be banned at the state level. Those bans then could only be challenged on 2nd amendment grounds.

 

I anticipate more blue states passing bans.

 

Anyone know which states already have bans on the books?

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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. 

[steveTA84]

Moms Demand Action’s NY lead is endorsing violence against SCOTUS as revenge 

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/moms-demand-action-ny-state-lead-calling-for-violence-against-scotus

[davel501]

 

[davel501]

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.

[Flynn]

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.

[SiliconSorcerer]

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. 

[Tvandermyde]

https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-trump-era-ban-firearms-bump-stocks/14948752/

[davel501]

Yep, I'm convinced Chevron is going down. Alito saying Congress has to make the rules means Chevron is dead. 

 

Don't throw Alito under the bus for taunting the gun controllers with the votes they don't have. 

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

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. 

 

 

[Flynn]

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...

[SiliconSorcerer]

I agree with he didn't say it was constitutional and no way in heck will they pass anything in THIS climate BUT...

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

[Flynn]

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... 

[SiliconSorcerer]

And JB isl beating his chest about how they are still illegal in illinois.  

 

[mauserme]

On 6/15/2024 at 9:53 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

And JB isl beating his chest about how they are still illegal in illinois.  

 

 

This was more about separation of powers than the Second Amendment.  The media are creating a straw man to a degree, and the Governor is using that to his advantage while he can.