Great news for 2nd Amendment!

(yes, 2nd Amendment, despite what one poster said about "you can't shoot a bump stock")

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

The very possibility of good news on any front right now is exciting.

What if I call it a Jolt Support? Does that make it ok?

So the timing of this means we should expect to see the brace rule make it to SCOTUS in about 5 more years.

The totalitarian left knows how to play the red tape game.

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

What if I call it a Jolt Support? Does that make it ok?

---

Just dont call it 'the shoulder thing that goes up', that's been claimed.

tk111 said:

---

So the timing of this means we should expect to see the brace rule make it to SCOTUS in about 5 more years.

The totalitarian left knows how to play the red tape game.

---

You know this but

Never comply

Already overturned in Texas right?

tk111 said:

---

So the timing of this means we should expect to see the brace rule make it to SCOTUS in about 5 more years.

The totalitarian left knows how to play the red tape game.

---

Amusingly it's through "conservative" republicans.

Oral Argument on this one is today! 7-2 coming up!

if any other psychos listening in, if that voice arguing on behalf of cargill sounds familiar, that is jonathan mitchell, who argued for trump in the colorado ballot case

Jackson is dumb

Remember when all liberals were experts and talked about bump stocks non-stop?

Almost like they lost interest after the media reprogrammed them to be upset about the next thing.

Jackson- I need a reason, other than the plain language of the law, to apply the law as written.

listening in the background, funny to hear these justices with little to no shooting experience try to answer this:

Quote:

---

Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger."

---

Quote:

---

into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger."

---

yup. and anyone who has ever used one knows that it clearly does not perform the function described above. not even a little bit.

RK said:

---

Quote:

---

into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger."

---

yup. and anyone who has ever used one knows that it clearly does not perform the function described above. not even a little bit.

---

Reality and facts have NO place here, sir. None.

KBJ's outrageous claim

800 rounds per second???

And Soto wondering about arthritis and the second amendment.

Thank goodness we have such informed folks on the SC.

Quote:

---

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" under 5845(b). Pp. 619. (a) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" as defined by 5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" and (2) even if it could, it would not do so "automatically." ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns. P. 6.

---

6-3 victory!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf

Justice Thomas with another excellent 2nd Amendment opinion.

Rapier108 said:

---

I fully expect it to be upheld 5-4 or 6-3 with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and/or Barrett siding with the libs.

Same outcome if the pistol brace case makes it there.

Hopefully, I'm wrong.

---

Good ruling! Allowing the left to decide that an apple is an orange and make laws around that is a slippery slope we can't let happen.

Rapier108 said:

---

I fully expect it to be upheld 5-4 or 6-3 with Roberts, Kavanaugh, and/or Barrett siding with the libs.

Same outcome if the pistol brace case makes it there.

Hopefully, I'm wrong.

---

Swing and a miss per usual

How can this be? On the news last night, they showed a bump stock being used in slow motion that looked so scaaaary!

"shall not be infringed. "

Clear and concise language.

Now, onto the hundreds of other infringements.

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

The fact that you're back to troll with your 50th account is rather sad.

I haven't read the opinion, but what effect will this have on Wide Open Triggers and the Glock Switch?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

---

That would be unconstitutional and I'd hope this SC would act, in haste, to kill that stupidity

GeorgiAg said:

---

I haven't read the opinion, but what effect will this have on Wide Open Triggers and the Glock Switch?

---

Since the Glock switch allows the gun to fire actual full auto, not just rapid trigger pulls, this ruling shouldn't have any effect on that.

BigRobSA said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

---

That would be unconstitutional and I'd hope this SC would act, in haste, to kill that stupidity

---

Not really. Full on machine guns aren't illegal. Just very expensive and complicated to get. If Congress added bump stocks and triggers to that class, Alito is signalling that would be legal. It's just not the ATFs place to do that.

Hopefully this is a signal that Congress is going to be put on the spot to do their job and not just let federal agencies make stuff up on their own with no oversight.

BigRobSA said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

---

That would be unconstitutional and I'd hope this SC would act, in haste, to kill that stupidity

---

If you take the shall not be infringed as absolute, do you allow citizens to arm themselves with nukes, M1A1s, Bazookas, etc since the second amendment is the right bear arms and not guns and all of the above are armaments?

I think there will always be a line drawn as to what is allowed by the SC and politicians on both sides of the aisle because I doubt many people want Bill Gates with a nuke. I have no idea where the line would be drawn by the this court as to what is constitutional and what isn't.

Mathguy64 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

---

That would be unconstitutional and I'd hope this SC would act, in haste, to kill that stupidity

---

Not really. Full on machine guns aren't illegal. Just very expensive and complicated to get. If Congress added bump stocks and triggers to that class, Alito is signalling that would be legal. It's just not the ATFs place to do that.

Hopefully this is a signal that Congress is going to be put on the spot to do their job and not just let federal agencies make stuff up on their own with no oversight.

---

"Shall not be infringed."

Not "Okay, just a little infringement."

This is one area where, for obvious reasons, the FFs were very clear.

Rapier108 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I haven't read the opinion, but what effect will this have on Wide Open Triggers and the Glock Switch?

---

Since the Glock switch allows the gun to fire actual full auto, not just rapid trigger pulls, this ruling shouldn't have any effect on that.

---

The WOT and other auto reset triggers should be legal though.

Kansas Kid said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Not really a second amendment victory. It was a statutory interpretation victory. The opinion includes comments that Congress could change the law to outlaw bump stocks.

---

That would be unconstitutional and I'd hope this SC would act, in haste, to kill that stupidity

---

If you take the shall not be infringed as absolute, do you allow citizens to arm themselves with nukes, M1A1s, Bazookas, etc since the second amendment is the right bear arms and not guns and all of the above are armaments?

---

Sounds good. The 2nd Amendment was for citizens to be able to protect themselves for an oppressive government.

In case you haven't been paying attention, there are many in the government currently who want to strip us of our rights and do not believe in the Constitution.