I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
And I don’t believe that you are a gun nut at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.
However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:
The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.
If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.
If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.
While many in the US have one or more gun, I would argue most were unaware of bump stocks until the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. TL;DR, a bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle as a “spring” to help pull the trigger over and over again - effectively behaving like a “machine gun.” As already stated, it does not meet the US legal definition of a machine gun because you’re still firing one round per trigger pull. The bump stock basically makes the trigger pull automatic.
As for why it’s a big debate, read the wiki article. One guy killed A LOT of people pretty quickly using this device to greatly increase his rate of fire. It was a public eye opener for much of the country. So much so, that even Donald f’ing Trump came to the realization that something should be don. He didn’t even really get much push back on it from the right or the NRA. That’s how sobering the massacre was. That said, it happened long enough ago that it’s memory probably isn’t powerful enough for anyone to change the law to ban them and similar mechanisms (see: the binary trigger elsewhere in the comments). If they tried banning them today, the NRA and conservatives would fight it tooth and nail.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.
This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited.
Incorrect.
It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.
Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger definition.
I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.
And I don’t believe that you are a gun nut at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.
This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:
I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.
A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.
Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.
If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.
If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.
For a non-american, non-knowledgeable on gun person, I’ve seen the bump stock discussion a few times this week.
Why is it a discussion? What difference does a bumpstock do?
While many in the US have one or more gun, I would argue most were unaware of bump stocks until the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. TL;DR, a bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle as a “spring” to help pull the trigger over and over again - effectively behaving like a “machine gun.” As already stated, it does not meet the US legal definition of a machine gun because you’re still firing one round per trigger pull. The bump stock basically makes the trigger pull automatic.
As for why it’s a big debate, read the wiki article. One guy killed A LOT of people pretty quickly using this device to greatly increase his rate of fire. It was a public eye opener for much of the country. So much so, that even Donald f’ing Trump came to the realization that something should be don. He didn’t even really get much push back on it from the right or the NRA. That’s how sobering the massacre was. That said, it happened long enough ago that it’s memory probably isn’t powerful enough for anyone to change the law to ban them and similar mechanisms (see: the binary trigger elsewhere in the comments). If they tried banning them today, the NRA and conservatives would fight it tooth and nail.
Thanks for the context and explanation. It is appreciated.
That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.
This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.
Incorrect.
It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.
Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger definition.
The solution is to change the text of the law.