Supreme Court strikes down the bump stock ban

Just saw that. The MSM melt will make for a great start to the weekend

Thomas wrote the opinion.
"Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. The firing cycle remains the same. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger. The bump stock makes it easier for the shooter to move the firearm back toward his shoulder and thereby release pressure from the trigger and reset it. And, it helps the shooter press the trigger against his finger very quickly thereafter. A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does. Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every “function of the trigger.” So, a bump stock cannot qualify as a machinegun under §5845(b)’s definition"

"But, §5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. Nor does it define a machinegun based on whether the shooter has assistance engaging the trigger. The statutory definition instead hinges on how many shots discharge when the shooter engages the trigger. And, as we have explained, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot each time the shooter engages the trigger—with or without a bump stock.6 Supra, at 7–12. In any event, ATF’s argument cannot succeed on its own terms. "

"ATF resists the natural implication of its reasoning."
"Finally, the position that ATF and the dissent endorse is logically inconsistent."

I love that man.

Alito concurred.
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

I'm fine with this.

But I'm not wasting my money on trashy bump stocks.

quote:

---

Thomas wrote the opinion.

---

We really don't deserve that man...

quote:

---

it doesn’t make it auto!” as if that’s somehow a defensible position

---

Well it is because there is a specific technical definition in play here and a bump stock, FRT, binary trigger, etc in no way changes the semi-automatic function. It's in the same vein as gun-control loons attempting to coerce the ATF and DOJ to adopt a "performance" standard to define armor-piercing ammunition vs. the current definition based on intent and materials used. Just because a .300 Win Mag soft point can blow through soft body armor rated for pistol rounds does that make it armor piercing? No, it's a dishonest and technically ignorant way to affect a rule change, same as attempting to put bump stocks on the NFA. Jerry Miculek's trigger finger could be a NFA machine gun if the ATF wanted, same way they classified a shoe string in the 1990's...

No he didn't.

It was the unsurprising 3.

Should've been 9-0. Congress is supposed to legislate, not the ATF.
The ATF's pistol brace crap was also vacated this week.

quote:

---

it’s funny to me when the argument is “actually the bump stock just makes a semi auto faster, it doesn’t make it auto!” as if that’s somehow a defensible position.

---

If an ammo manufacturer developed a cartridge that made no sound when fired should that be illegal or should it be heralded as saving the hearing of millions of hunters?