US Supreme Court throws out ban on bump stocks for guns
www.bbc.com
It says the government does not have the right to ban the accessories, which were used in America's deadliest mass shooting.
      • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        They didn’t care when someone shot them at a congressional softball game.

      • ieatpwns@lemmy.world
        10·
        6 months ago

        I removed a fingers crossed emoji because this this was extremely poor taste and I realize how stupid I am

        • Kit
          9·
          6 months ago

          Bro did you just cross your fingers that children get shot??

    • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      6 months ago

      You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It’s been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn’t actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn’t really change anything other than one less law to enforce.

      Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      12·
      6 months ago

      No they don’t (well… they do, but not for this). Bump stocks are a stupid gimmick that were only ever banned in the first place to appease low-information hysterical types.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      6·
      6 months ago

      No they don’t. Lawmakers do, for failing to pass a law banning bump stocks. What exactly do you think is the role of a judge?

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    50·
    6 months ago

    As I said in the other thread… This wasn’t a merits decision as to “bumpstocks good” or “bumpstocks bad”. The point was that machine guns have a statutory definition. Bumpstocks did not fit that definition. Trump tried to use executive order to essentially amend the law all by himself to revise the practical implementation of that definition. That’s not how the US works. If the president wants bumpstocks banned, he must use political capital to lobby congress to pass a bill, then sign the bill if it makes it that far.

    To everyone whining about the outcome of this particular case, imagine unilateral executive authority applied to every area of American life, and realize what you are wishing for.

      • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        13·
        6 months ago

        People have gotten in the habit of cheering on court rulings based on outcome, rather than any defining principles. I’ve been trying to encourage people to imagine the shoe is on the other foot and their political enemies are in charge, before contemplating expansion of federal powers.

    • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      In my opinion, a bumpstock does actually fit the definition of a machine gun, because the user-action to fire multiple shots in a row is one continuous action. Your finger becomes a part of the mechanical function of the gun and the trigger is pressed by pushing the handguard forward.

      • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        3·
        6 months ago

        Problem is… by that definition, pants beltloops are also machineguns because you can bumpfire just as easily from those, and through exactly the same combined “mechanical function”.

        • Liz@midwest.socialEnglish
          8·
          6 months ago

          And if you attach a string to an M1 carbine just right it also becomes a machine gun. Constructive intent and the ability to enforce the law matter. We’re never going to be able to ban strings or belt loops, and neither are produced or owned with the intent of building a machine gun, but a bump stock is clearly a purpose built device intended to turn a rifle into a machine gun and it’s comparatively easy to enforce prohibition on such a specialized part.

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      7·
      6 months ago

      It’s incredibly fucking stupid to use these things for anything other than indiscriminate area effect, which equates only to spraying into a crowd in any realistic civilian context.

      This is what really pains me is the bump stock is a device whose only real purpose is to hurt a large group of people with no regard to who is in that area. No one is going to be out on the white house lawn mowing down zombie hordes with this thing. Its primary intent is to hurt civilians.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    6 months ago

    Since a bump stock alone is just a useless object, couldn’t they have just been banned them without ever even needing to reference weapons?

  • ObamaBinLaden@lemmy.world
    13·
    6 months ago

    I’ll preface this by saying I’m not American so the point of this isn’t a statement on seconds amendment. What I do not understand is, why would citizens be so obsessed by this format of firearms that it would make it all the way to the supreme court.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    13·
    6 months ago

    im glad the country is using time and resources for such an important issue as this

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    3·
    6 months ago

    Now if they would just ban financial bump stocks, a.k.a. penny stocks, which contributed as much to the las vegas shooting as gun bump stocks did.