Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban

Anything that makes it easier to slaughter people as quickly as possible will be their ruling.

 

How naive and silly.

 

Will be an interesting agency deference case, because it turns basically solely on whether ATF’s rule improperly expands the statutory definition of a machinegun.

The statute defines a machinegun as a firearm that automatically fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger.

It is undisputed that a gun equipped with a bump stock requires the trigger to be separately depressed for every shot it fires. ATF’s regulations classify bump stocks as machineguns by focusing not on what the trigger does, but on what the user’s trigger finger does - you pull the trigger finger rearward once, and then the stock holds the trigger finger in place while allowing the frame of the gun to float freely so that, when continuous forward pressure is applied to the foregrip of the gun, that works in conjunction with the gun’s recoil to cause the trigger to be repeatedly bounced against your stationary trigger finger (essentially the recoil pushes the gun backwards in the stock, then the forward pressure you are applying to the foregrip pulls it back forward). The trigger bouncing against your trigger finger causes the trigger to repeatedly be depressed and released, resulting in a string of very, very fast fire despite the gun still functioning as a semi-automatic weapon.

There are also a number of related issues including the question of, if ATF’s interpretation was ever entitled to deference, would that deference still be applicable in criminal law cases or would it be trumped by the rule of lenity? And does it matter that ATF repeatedly issued classification rulings finding that bump stocks were legal and not machineguns, then issued a rule “clarifying” their interpretation of the statutory definition of a machinegun and saying that their prior rulings were in error and bump stocks have actually always been illegal machineguns.

 

Anything to ban all guns, and confiscate all weapons, by force if necessary.

Dumb people that kill each other should not be free people.

 

Your explanation only confirms that it is a device intended to mimic a machine gun. You're trying to argue form over substance. The statutory definition is:
"The term 'machinegun' 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."

You just confirmed that if you pull the trigger once, the gun will keep firing (until the clip is empty or you remove your finger).

As I see it, the best approach is to seek to harmonize the two. If the agency's interpretation is reasonable and resolves the ambiguity in the statute, the rule of lenity shouldn't apply. If it fails to resolve the ambiguity, the rule of lenity should apply. Fair notice is the main concern of the rule of lenity. If the agency's regulation gave you fair notice, why would we ignore that?

As for the changing interpretation, that would be relevant insofar as it failed to give fair notice or could prove that the new interpretation is arbitrary and capricious. But I don't see how it would be relevant to statutory interpretation. Administrative bodies change rules, regulations, interpretations, and guidance fairly routinely. It's an elected branch, and the point of elections is to put people in office who will advance policies that their voters prefer. Those policies often differ from the policies of their predecessors.

 

it isn’t just that. You also have to apply forward pressure with your support hand to the hand guard of the gun. Enough, but not too much, and maintain somewhat of a cadence in how you do so so that you don’t outrun the cycling of the bolt. Once you get the hang of it, it isn’t terribly hard but it also isn’t something that is automatic in the sense that if you pull the trigger to the rear, the gun keeps firing by that action alone, and thus the single function of the trigger thing. It also isn’t necessary to have a bump stock to achieve the same effect on nearly any semi automatic weapon of sufficient size. You can literally use a belt loop on your pants to achieve the same effect. Should pants with belt loops be NFA machine guns? If you were to consistently apply the bump stock rule, then yes.

the problem with that is the statute really isn’t all that ambiguous. The statute refers to a single function of the trigger, not a single function of a finger or any other action by the operator of said weapon.
As this is a criminal statute, reasonableness really doesn’t apply, but strict construction does.

 

With either a good bit of skill or some dumb luck you can bump fire a lot of guns from the shoulder without any aid.

Is my right hand a machinegun? Since I can prove that I lawfully possessed my right hand prior to July of 1986, if I tattoo a serial number on it can I have it added to the NFA registry?



In all seriousness, what makes it interesting is that the statutory definition of a machinegun is based on the mechanical function of the gun, not the rate of fire (hence why things like Gatling guns or other crank-operated firearms that shoot really fast aren’t machineguns). But the mechanical operation of a gun equipped with a bump stock is identical to that of one without it, it just makes it very easy to hold the gun in a way that allows extremely fast semi-auto fire.

 

It ought to be obvious that meaningful gun regulations will remain a pipe dream in America. There have actually been people defending Maine's gun laws.

 

Single function of the trigger could mean single pull of the trigger. And indeed, with a bump stock, a single pull of the trigger can lead to continuous fire. Your belt loop example is irrelevant.

Is the purpose of the rule of lenity to provide fair notice to people whose liberty is being threatened? Yes or no.

 

Tell me you don't understand how a bump stock works without telling me you don't understand how a bump stock works. The belt loop is absolutely relevant. Placing your trigger finger through the trigger guard and then looping it around your belt loop is the exact same thing as using a bump stock. Your finger is in a relatively fixed position while the rifle itself is allowed to move forward when a shooter applies a forward tension to the gun by pushing forward on the handguard with the support arm with enough but not too much pressure, bumping your stationary finger against the trigger, and then the force of recoil driving the firearm to the rear before the forward tension from the support arm overcomes the recoil force and pushes the firearm forward bumping the trigger again. In either case, the mechanism driving bump firing and accelerated rates of fire is the support side arm acting as a spring, not the bump stock or belt loop nor the trigger itself.

And yes, single function of the trigger generally has been held to mean single pull (though in some cases it can mean single release of the trigger, or both). Not a single function of the support side hand, or anything to that effect. The statutory definition is completely centered on the mechanical function of the gun.

I'm not on the stand being questioned counselor, nor am I obligated to answer a loaded question on your terms. In its most simple sense, yes, but it is also a check on the executive branch making extratextual interpretations that may usurp the authority of the legislative branch who wrote the law with the judiciary as the arbiters of whether or not the interpretation is valid. An agency can't just declare under the clean air act that all ICE vehicles are illegal and everyone who owns one after January 1 is a criminal, however, regardless of the notice they provide, if it is discovered that the air conditions are significantly worse than anticipated in the Clean Air Act. Where people's freedom is concerned, the courts have been pretty consistent that strict construction is the norm. The bump stock rule is not strict construction.

 

Tell the families of the 58 people slaughtered in Vegas about how a bumpstock works. I'm sure they would be intrigued.

 

I feel for them, but we do have laws in this country, and a mechanism to change them. What those laws say does matter, and we don't get to just throw them to the side based on feels.

 

I do not think bump stocks should be allowed or even a thing… however the ATF took power for themselves that they did not have and the wording for a machine gun/ automatic weapon is very clear and easily discerned.
I agree, there needs to be a new ruling, passed by our milquetoast congress to ban bump stocks. I also agree that the law that was passed did not meet the qualifications of an automatic weapon.
Just because we do not like a law or like how the law is worded does not mean we can nor should we try to expand or shrink the definitions/ purview of the law to fit what we want. As soon as we start doing that all laws become fair game and it will jot end well. It’s one reason I think the ATF needs to be reigned in and Congress actually do their damn jobs.

 

ATF is a bureau within the Justice Department (it has shifted back and forth from being in Treasury to being in DOJ a couple of times in its history, but while it was under Treasury for the vast majority of the time has been under DOJ since 2003).

 

Machine guns are only dangerous if you try to own one without the tax stamp. Same with SBRs and suppressors. Then it is dangerous for you and even more for your dog.