Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Bump-Stock Ban

And the Lib Dems aree the gun control nuts. They are lost ...

The ATF had previously issued a statement that bump-stocks were in fact NOT automatic weapons. When they were made illegal, everyone who owned one was in violation of the automatic weapon ATF ban. A felon. The court gave a proper ruling. Other posters probably know more about it than I do.

Yeah, the "shooter" used a bump stock. Just about every service member that heard the audio was calling BS on that. Good job on this one there DJT. s/

I don't remember Trump triggering the ban (not to pun) but I do recall PIAPS screeching about bump stocks at the time, so that alone makes it the right decision by the Court.

A good start. Now, get someone to file another lawsuit, and get the National Firearms Act of 1934 declared unconstitutional and overturned. When Trump takes office, there are a number of government agencies he should defund. One of them is the ATF.

So a bump stock is not a machine gun. When can we get the court to decide that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant?

Very good news for gun rights, but this is a bit of a odd one. And Trump was basically lied to about these devices. They do NOT 'convert to a machine gun'. I have no desire to own a bump stock, and won't go out and get one...never did when they were available for the last 30 years. Getting a gun to sorta-kinda, sometimes, if you hold it JUST right simulate full auto just seemed a silly thing. If I really cared, I could go through the hoops and expense and buy an actual machine gun. I haven't done it, even though I could. BUT....the key here is that the anti-gun folks cannot just up and change definitions of things to suit their gun prohibition goals. The DEFINITION, for many, many years, of a fully automatic weapon is a weapon that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic guns get you one shot for one pull of the trigger. Bump stocks just let you pull the trigger very quickly on a semi-auto by utilizing the bouncing effect of the spring loaded stock from recoil. But the gun is still ONE SHOT per ONE trigger pull, just a lot of very fast trigger pulls. Anyone with decent reflexes and no special bump stock can come pretty damned close to full auto speed with just pulling the trigger as fast as you can, IF YOU WANT TO. And like any of this stuff, fast firing generates MISSES quickly. Aiming and careful trigger pulling is what generates hits. Most serious military war fighters use semi-auto only on their guns.

Trivia tidbit. I have seen The Fastest Gun Who Ever Lived....Bob Munden a professional marksman showman make a Colt 1911 .45 automatic pistol....bone stock...no mods, do this same thing. Hold the gun just right and press on the trigger with your opposite "stationary" finger. The recoil of the gun pulls it back from the trigger just a hair, resetting the mechanism, and then the normal flexibility of your grip lets the gun move just a bit forward....pushing it against the stationary opposite finger....which fires it again. Rinse repeat. Gun bouncing JUST right cycles the trigger very, very quickly. This has been known for 70 or more years. And it isn't "making a machine gun". If you want some fun, look for Bob Munden videos, he was literally incredible. I'm a pretty fair shot, and he was both ultra fast and very, very accurate in his show shooting. So was his wife.

Rulings going to come down hot and heavy in the next few weeks. As I said yesterday....fasten seat belts.

This case was based on the Las Vegas attack on a country music festival. Just a reminder - we STILL don’t know anything about the shooter. Country music fans tend to be conservative so the shooter clearly had an agenda. No wonder the enemedia, the FBI and the rest of the left hushed it all up.

This should have been you anonymous. A judges ideology does not change the law.

At last one more firearms case is before the Supreme Court —- National Rifle Association v. Vullo. An NRA victory in this one complicates the democrat tactic to do a financial crackdown on the gun industry.

At least . . .

I find it interesting that Sotomayor demonstrates, yet again, the vacuousness of liberal judges. In Sotomayor's mind, something that allows the government to function in a desired way is legally valid. Note that such functioning is often NOT is alignment with laws that have been debated in and passed Congress and signed by a President or as set forth in the Constitution. Such action is blatantly antidemocratic, i.e. NOT generated by the People or their elected representatives. It is not law. It is bureaucratic fiat. It is corrosive and toxic to American government. It is an abomination that a Supreme Court Justice could think like this. I would think that such a Justice should be impeachable for violation of their oaths; "...I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME;" AND "I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the CONSTITUTION AND LAWS of the United States." The Constitution defines how laws shall be created. There is NO allegiance to the "government". The Constitution is a document of the American People. It opens with "We the People of the United States". The Constitution and the laws that flow FROM it are not about the rights and needs of government. Sotomayor's ideas are a violation of her oath to the Constitution.

You are absolutely right, #14. The Wide Latina wrote: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” I would add.....even if there is hard proof that it is a goose or an egret, no doubt. Her "logic" is illogical, and at odds with the Constitution. The Executive Branch has no ability to make laws. This was essentially changing the fundamental definition of a machine gun which the Legislative Branch wrote into the law that it created. NOT Constitutional to do that, regardless of how much the Wide Latina doesn't like guns. The law doesn't say "a machine gun is a gun that fires too fast",which seems to be her dimwitted interpretation. The law writes precisely about the function of the trigger, which is THE difference between semi-auto and full auto firing systems. One shot per pull....SEMI, multiple shots per pull.....FULL. It's that simple. She swore to uphold the Constitution and she pees all over it with most of her decisions, although occasionally she gets one right.

While bump stocks might not turn a semi-auto rifle into a fully automatic one... for sure they turn the shooter into a clown. I own firearms. Bump stocks are a bad idea. Legal? Fine. Stupid? Most certainly.