The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 15, 2024, 09:23 PM   #26
Recycled bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2022
Posts: 368
I'm truly surprised the atf haven't tried to redefine earplugs as suppressors.
Recycled bullet is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 01:28 AM   #27
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,350
Well, if you really want to dive into the anti-gun rhetoric, and misinformation, here's some links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1HCsNLLQTA&t=98s

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-...y-140923461716

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/wa...s-213039173838
DaleA is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 03:09 AM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
^^^

First video just happens to have comments turned off. Isn't that just special? Throw out a bunch of irrational garbage, and turn off comments to that nobody can point out how irrational your ravings are.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 05:29 AM   #29
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
Isn't this the reason that heat Shields were specifically listed under assault weapon bans?
Nope. Carolyn McCarthy once admitted she didn't even know what a barrel shroud was.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 06:20 AM   #30
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,993
Handguards, forearms, forestocks.... we've always had them.

But "barrel shrouds"... well they sound evil... and look evil.
(Clothes make the man don'cha know....)

It's all about appearances these days,
and near-willful ignorance.
mehavey is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 12:16 PM   #31
The Verminator
member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 662
Anything "shrouded" must be some sort of deception.

Thus bad.

And if it's black?

Doubly so.
The Verminator is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 02:11 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,271
Heat shields, barrel shrouds, forward pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs along with several other features were deemed "evil" and made into features banned under the assault weapon law.

Some of the reasoning they used was more than just speculative, it was totally fictional, Flash suppressors banned because there was a NATO rifle grenade (that the US never used) made to fit over the flash suppressor, and since one can get these things off the shelf at every 7-11 store, (intentional sarcasm here) they got banned.

Never understood the reasoning for the bayonet lug, though. I guess it was due to all the drive by bayonettings...

Quote:
I'm truly surprised the atf haven't tried to redefine earplugs as suppressors.
My guess would be because they are not attached to the firearm. Otherwise, I think they would try.

The bumpfire stock idea was submitted to the ATF for classification (during the Obama administration) and was approved for sale to the general public, because it did not meet the legal definition of a restricted item (such as a machine gun).

Then, several years later, one was used in a mass shooting, and that stirred up a lot of angst, so the then current administration (Trump) ordered the ATF to do something. What the ATF did was, on their own authority, and with no change to the law, reclassify a formerly legal and unregulated firearm accessory as a machine gun, and give those who possessed such items a narrow range of options to avoid Federal prosecution.

SCOTUS, has ruled, correctly, I think, that the ATF did not have the legal authority to do that.

Wonder where they'll take us, next?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 02:18 PM   #33
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,534
Sotomayor seems to be angling to be the new John Paul Stevens in that she seems to be the dissenter most willing to use, to put it politely, "creative" reasoning to get to the conclusion she wants. Whether or not a bump-stock or any other accessory turns a semi-automatic firearm into "functionally" a machine gun is irrelevant. Thomas and the rest of the majority made the correct decision for two reasons.

1. A machine gun is, legally, very specifically defined and bump stocks do not meet that specific definition ergo, bump stocks are not illegal.

2. Because a machine gun is so specifically legally defined and ATF does not have the power to make or change law (only congress can do that) then ATF does not have the authority without an act of congress to redefine what is or is not a machine gun including bump stocks.

It seems to me that Sotomayor is attempting to argue that while bump stocks may not violate the letter of the law, they violate its spirit or intent. While this is probably true, the letter of the law is all that really matters as there have been plenty of people convicted and sent to prison who, while complying with the spirit or intent of the law, violated its letter, often unintentionally. A situation where one can comply with the letter of a law, rule, or regulation but completely contradict is intention or vice-versa is a classic case of unintended consequences and the fault for such a situation rests not with the people who take advantage of it or are victimized by it, but squarely on the shoulders of the people who made such poorly thought out laws, rules, or regulations.

Actually, Sotomayor's argument brings up another point that I doubt she meant to, but I think is worthy of exploration. If the NFA's prohibitions on machine guns (bump stocks, binary triggers, forced-reset triggers), and short-barrel rifles and shotguns (pistol braces) are so easily side-stepped, then of what use is the NFA? If we suppose for a moment that Sotomayor is correct in that bump-stocks turn semi-automatic weapons "functionally if not legally" into machine guns or that pistol braces turn handguns "functionally if not legally" into short-barreled rifles, then why do we not have motorized bandits running amok and blood running in the streets? What I think Sotomayor and others like her haven't thought about is that her "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" argument cuts both ways. If you can so easily have something that creates a "functional equivalent" to an NFA item yet we don't seem to have the problems that the NFA is supposed to prevent, they why are NFA items worth regulating to begin with?
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 02:46 PM   #34
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,941
I heard Just Sotomayor wrote in her decent that these bump stocks are placed on commonly used everyday rifles to make them shoot like machine guns . All I can say to that is “Thank you justice Sotomayor “ you have just confirmed modern sporting rifles are commonly used and are not machine guns . This should help us defeat these so-called AW bans . oops haha
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 03:20 PM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
I downloaded the complete decision. I admit that I didn't read all of Thomas's majority opinion -- I skipped ahead to Sotomayor's dissent. Basically, it shows that she doesn't know how to read plain English. The definition of a machine gun is that it fires more than one round with a single "function of the trigger."

Sotomayor:

Quote:
As long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger on the finger rest and maintains constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel or front grip, the weapon will fire continuously.
...
A bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle is a machinegun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a “single function of the trigger” means a reset of the trigger mechanism. Its interpretation requires six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text.
So, in essence, she can't comprehend the difference between a single function of the trigger, and a single function of the finger.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 03:31 PM   #36
Recycled bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2022
Posts: 368
Is Justice Sotomayor demonstrating constructive ignorance?
Recycled bullet is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 03:50 PM   #37
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,941
I can’t wait for lawyers to file briefs in other cases using her backward logic against her by sighting her own words against her .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 06:08 PM   #38
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recycled bullet
Is Justice Sotomayor demonstrating constructive ignorance?
I would say, "Yes, she is."

Justice Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican ancestry. She was born in New York to Puerto Rican parents, so we don't know if English is her first or second language. (However, her father didn't speak English, so we can draw some conclusions as to which language was probably spoken in the home.) Either way, she graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School so she should have a functional knowledge of the English language. For her to claim that the "plain language" of a law that specifically addresses the function of a mechanical device "must" include the function of a part of the human anatomy demonstrates either a remarkable ignorance of the English language, or an intention to misinterpret, misapply, and obfuscate the issue.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 07:56 PM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,271
Quote:
Is Justice Sotomayor demonstrating constructive ignorance?
there is nothing constructive about her ignorance.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 08:00 PM   #40
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,526
There are a couple of influences that would help to explain all three dissenting votes.

First, none of them are gun people. Gorsuch may have spent some time outdoors and been around some arms, and Scalia did a bit of that too. However, for the most part this would be like explaining direct injection engines to nine amish people. FWIW, the questions from the majority during oral argument weren't free of confusion either. Thomas tried some initial clarifying questions, but they didn't seem to do the trick.

Other than fidelity to the original accepted meaning of the text, what would be the benefit to Kagan, Jackson or Sotomayor of understanding and accepting that meaning?

In 2010, Sotomayor was on the court and in the face of a draconian state restriction didn't see the individual right described in Heller as fundamental or a proper subject of incorporation.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 08:08 PM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
The Wikipedia article on Ms. Sotomayor makes interesting reading. Apparently at every step along her career, at least beginning with her admission to Princeton if not with her admission to high school, she has been a beneficiary of "affirmative action" in admissions, being admitted even though her academic performance and test scores were sub-par and in employment.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 16, 2024, 10:09 PM   #42
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,993
And as we have have now sown, so have we now reaped.

If wishes were horses on the Supreme Court is corrosive to the rule of Law.
mehavey is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 10:21 AM   #43
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv View Post
Sotomayor seems to be angling to be the new John Paul Stevens in that she seems to be the dissenter most willing to use, to put it politely, "creative" reasoning to get to the conclusion she wants. Whether or not a bump-stock or any other accessory turns a semi-automatic firearm into "functionally" a machine gun is irrelevant. Thomas and the rest of the majority made the correct decision for two reasons.

1. A machine gun is, legally, very specifically defined and bump stocks do not meet that specific definition ergo, bump stocks are not illegal.

2. Because a machine gun is so specifically legally defined and ATF does not have the power to make or change law (only congress can do that) then ATF does not have the authority without an act of congress to redefine what is or is not a machine gun including bump stocks.

It seems to me that Sotomayor is attempting to argue that while bump stocks may not violate the letter of the law, they violate its spirit or intent. While this is probably true, the letter of the law is all that really matters as there have been plenty of people convicted and sent to prison who, while complying with the spirit or intent of the law, violated its letter, often unintentionally. A situation where one can comply with the letter of a law, rule, or regulation but completely contradict is intention or vice-versa is a classic case of unintended consequences and the fault for such a situation rests not with the people who take advantage of it or are victimized by it, but squarely on the shoulders of the people who made such poorly thought out laws, rules, or regulations.

Actually, Sotomayor's argument brings up another point that I doubt she meant to, but I think is worthy of exploration. If the NFA's prohibitions on machine guns (bump stocks, binary triggers, forced-reset triggers), and short-barrel rifles and shotguns (pistol braces) are so easily side-stepped, then of what use is the NFA? If we suppose for a moment that Sotomayor is correct in that bump-stocks turn semi-automatic weapons "functionally if not legally" into machine guns or that pistol braces turn handguns "functionally if not legally" into short-barreled rifles, then why do we not have motorized bandits running amok and blood running in the streets? What I think Sotomayor and others like her haven't thought about is that her "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" argument cuts both ways. If you can so easily have something that creates a "functional equivalent" to an NFA item yet we don't seem to have the problems that the NFA is supposed to prevent, they why are NFA items worth regulating to begin with?
This is exactly right! ATF doesn't have the power to change laws. Congress can change the law to define machine guns as "bla bla bla ... and bumpstocks". But, if it were to do that, it would also have to open a registry for legally owned bumpstocks, or condemn them and buy them from owners. Question is, would this also open the registry to adding any machine guns?
Skans is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 10:22 AM   #44
Recycled bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2022
Posts: 368
A shoe string is a machine gun. What was the legal determination process to determine that a shoe string is a machine gun?
Recycled bullet is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 01:31 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,070
Quote:
she seems to be the dissenter most willing to use, to put it politely, "creative" reasoning to get to the conclusion she wants
It's a judicial philosophy known as pragmatism. She wants to make decisions based on their (perceived) impact on things like public safety.

Problem is, that's not their job. Their job is to resolve legal disputes. The majority opinion is the result of an approach called textualism, which examines the text and intent of the law. That was the proper course to take.

(Interesting side note: the court recently ruled discrimination against gay and transgender people to be a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The majority opinion was authored by Gorsuch under the same approach. It's interesting to follow his logic on it.)
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 07:10 PM   #46
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 2,075
The genie left the bottle.

Back in the day I may have printed a very functional bump stock. These days I don't own an AR pattern gun.
My point being entire firearms can be made from spools of filament and hardware store parts and pieces. Plenty of files and data are very available.
Anyone with a few hundred bucks and limited skills can manufacture firearms.
Most any Glock can be converted to an effective bullet hose with a simple kit. Yes, the folks here would never dream of doing so, the folks here are not the issue.
The bump stock ruling seems as much adieu over nothing.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 07:39 PM   #47
The Verminator
member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricklin View Post
The bump stock ruling seems as much ado over nothing.
Indeed.

I don't favor wasting money on excessive use of expensive ammo.

The Verminator is offline  
Old June 17, 2024, 10:19 PM   #48
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,271
The entire reason bump fire stocks were created was to be an affordable way for people to enjoy the simulation of full auto fire. And it was 100% legal, until it wasn't.

No, it wasn't for any practical use, it was for fun. Until ONE guy used one in a horrific mass shooting.

Then, in a typical nanny state reaction, since ONE guy did evil with it, they must be taken away from everyone. The manner chosen by the ATF was to exceed their legal authority and reclassify them as machine guns.

Remember that under the Obama administration, the ATF examined the idea and declared them not to be machineguns or firearms, and therefore not covered under current law and regulations.

After evil was done with one, the Trump administration's ATF changed their ruling, and did so without legal authority to do so, and that was what SCOTUS has just ruled on. Not the item itself, (though in a way they did, saying it did not meet the definition of machine gun) but the manner in which the ruling was changed.

Right now, a lot of very vocal people who don't understand how guns work, and only THINK they understand how the law works are screaming their heads off at the SCOTUS and every one who is in earshot about machine guns on the streets and the carnage that will result.

I'd like to think rational thinking will prevail, but I've been wrong before.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 08:53 AM   #49
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
^^^ The above post by 44 AMP is a very cogent summary of the situation.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 18, 2024, 09:45 AM   #50
Swifty Morgan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2018
Location: FL
Posts: 505
Regarding affirmative action, I went to law school with a girl whose family was from Jamaica. She was not unusually smart, but she had a full scholarship. Her dad was an airline pilot and made good money.

Her grades slipped, and she became distraught. Within a few days, she had a new scholarship.

I was much smarter than she was, but I paid $22,000 per year with zero discounts.

She was typical. I've known a bunch of black students, and they generally got free rides or close to it.

My school flew all the black freshmen off to Arkansas before their 1L year, secretly, and they were given free classes to help them get better first-semester grades than the rest of us.

I knew a white homosexual named Earl. His parents were very, very wealthy. They owned a bunch of farms. He got C's as an undergrad because he was lazy. He was admitted to law school anyway because of his homosexuality.

I knew a young black man who had been expelled from college in a hazing scandal. I encouraged him to apply to a major university. He was a musician. He played for the admissions committee, and they offered him full tuition on the spot. He was good, but he said other students were better. I told him to keep looking for special breaks for black students. When you're black, people associated with colleges bust their butts trying to help you. When you're white, no one cares about you. If your grades drop, if you have a medical problem, if you get arrested, if you drop out, no one even contacts you. You just disappear. Unless you're an athlete and bless society by playing a children's game on TV.

If you really want to hear from people affirmative action cheated, talk to Jews and Asians. Jews have been abused more than just about anyone, and they get nothing. Asians outdo the rest of us, so universities have imposed quotas to keep them out. Aren't they people of color? Guess not.

Sotomayor may be on the dim side for a justice. It would not have stopped her from serving as a federal judge or being promoted. There are plenty of incompetent federal judges.

You don't have to be brilliant to do a good job on the Supreme Court. Law generally isn't that hard, and the justices have lots of very smart clerks (lawyers themselves) who do the heavy lifting. Lawyers have tremendous egos, but the truth is, an average lawyer is only a little smarter than the mob.
__________________
I am censored and blackballed every day, in what used to be the United States.

People who think their guns shoot better than they do must not be shooting much rimfire.
Swifty Morgan is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10822 seconds with 10 queries