Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit Bump Stock Case)

[Apd09]

Whoops. Beat me by a nose

Was just replying “JINX”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ironpony]

I find it hard to believe that a SC level judge's decision can be swayed by arguments. What is the next step.

edit
Video says possible decision in June.

 

[Bob A]

It's not rocket science; the trigger HAS to reset to discharge another round.

Rate of fire has nothing to do with it; Gatling guns certainly outfire a bumpstocked rifle, yet they are not machine guns, and Joe Citizen can own them without permission from BATFE.

Our legislative bodies are approaching the level of a thousand chimpanzees with word processors. Just because you can print a stream of words (looking at YOU, AI) doesn't mean they have to actually MEAN something, or connect with reality, to become law.

 

[Some Guy]

The audio of the 2/28/2024 Cargill Supreme Court hearing is now available at the Supreme Court website site:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-976

Arguments Audios

 

[Boxcab]

I find it hard to believe that a SC level judge's decision can be swayed by arguments. What is the next step.

edit
Video says possible decision in June.

That's why there are briefs. The judges are well informed before the hearing is held. Their minds are all but made, and ask questions in order to validate what they know.


.




Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[TheOriginalMexicanBob]

The government claims an AR15 shoots 800 rounds per second!

800 rounds per second

 

[smokey]

Brown-Jackson is entirely too stupid to be on this court. Every time I hear the supremes during a court case, I just shake my head at her questions and comments. If you compare someone like gorsuch or alito to her, the gap in brain power is enormous.

 

[TinCuda]

It's not rocket science; the trigger HAS to reset to discharge another round.

Rate of fire has nothing to do with it; Gatling guns certainly outfire a bumpstocked rifle, yet they are not machine guns, and Joe Citizen can own them without permission from BATFE.

Our legislative bodies are approaching the level of a thousand chimpanzees with word processors. Just because you can print a stream of words (looking at YOU, AI) doesn't mean they have to actually MEAN something, or connect with reality, to become law.

You are correct.

To ultra-simplify it for the liberals in the back:

If the trigger resets at all, it is NOT a machine gun.

 

[Racer Doug14]

Brown-Jackson is entirely too stupid to be on this court. Every time I hear the supremes during a court case, I just shake my head at her questions and comments. If you compare someone like gorsuch or alito to her, the gap in brain power is enormous.

Yes. She is unbelievably dumb. "Chemical reaction"? WTF
She's not a mechanical engineer either.

 

[MigraineMan]

Yes. She is unbelievably dumb. "Chemical reaction"? WTF
She's not a mechanical engineer either.

Her trip down "chemical reaction" lane was a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the "function" of the trigger doesn't need to be a mechanical event. Unfortunately, she's too stupid to make a cogent argument about that, and conflates the chemical reaction with the triggering event.

Like it or not, Congress drew a legislative line in the sand that distinguishes machineguns from not-machineguns. The test for that distinction is "single function of the trigger." Don't like where the line is drawn? Too fvcking bad; get Congress to change the legislation. "Legislative intent in 1934?" and "shoots faster-er" are irrelevant, arbitrary and capricious.

Somebody needs to hold up a semi-auto firearm equipped with a bump stock, and shake the piss out of it. Move it vigorously through the reciprocating motion - left hand, right hand, both hands - and demonstrate that not-a-damn-thing happens until you activate the trigger. And regardless of the contorted dance you perform, you still only get one bang per activation and attendant trigger-function cycle.

 

[jc1240]

I think SCOTUS will strike this down as ATF not having the authority to redefine the statutory description of a machine gun but will rule in favor in a future case if Congress adds bump stocks as "machine guns."

 

[smokey]

Her trip down "chemical reaction" lane was a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the "function" of the trigger doesn't need to be a mechanical event. Unfortunately, she's too stupid to make a cogent argument about that, and conflates the chemical reaction with the triggering event.

Like it or not, Congress drew a legislative line in the sand that distinguishes machineguns from not-machineguns. The test for that distinction is "single function of the trigger." Don't like where the line is drawn? Too fvcking bad; get Congress to change the legislation. "Legislative intent in 1934?" and "shoots faster-er" are irrelevant, arbitrary and capricious.

Somebody needs to hold up a semi-auto firearm equipped with a bump stock, and shake the piss out of it. Move it vigorously through the reciprocating motion - left hand, right hand, both hands - and demonstrate that not-a-damn-thing happens until you activate the trigger. And regardless of the contorted dance you perform, you still only get one bang per activation and attendant trigger-function cycle.

I do think their argument of, "So what if you have a trigger that requires you to also press a button to shoot full-auto? Because the trigger is doing two functions, why wouldn't that also not be a machinegun" is interesting and someone in the market should immediately make a trigger like that to submit to the ATF. If they're arguing that "pull" is the function and not the trigger releasing the sear, then a trigger that needs two triggers, or a trigger and a button to fire would qualify as those two "pulls" or functions. They can either stick to the FRT and bump stock function definition or allow that other trigger due to the "two functions/pulls".

 

[TheBert]

The government claims an AR15 shoots 800 rounds per second!

800 rounds per second

The barrel melts every time you use it, making multiple magazines useless.

 

[RFBfromDE]

Her trip down "chemical reaction" lane was a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the "function" of the trigger doesn't need to be a mechanical event. Unfortunately, she's too stupid to make a cogent argument about that, and conflates the chemical reaction with the triggering event.

....get Congress to change the legislation. "Legislative intent in 1934?" and "shoots faster-er" are irrelevant, arbitrary and capricious.

That's really what it comes down to for me.

I think SCOTUS will strike this down as ATF not having the authority to redefine the statutory description of a machine gun but will rule in favor in a future case if Congress adds bump stocks as "machine guns."

"External mechanical cyclical firing devices prohibited"

How difficult is that?

Why the ATF? Why the courts?

It's entirely a Legislative issue.

 

[Racer Doug14]

Her trip down "chemical reaction" lane was a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the "function" of the trigger doesn't need to be a mechanical event. Unfortunately, she's too stupid to make a cogent argument about that, and conflates the chemical reaction with the triggering event.

Like it or not, Congress drew a legislative line in the sand that distinguishes machineguns from not-machineguns. The test for that distinction is "single function of the trigger." Don't like where the line is drawn? Too fvcking bad; get Congress to change the legislation. "Legislative intent in 1934?" and "shoots faster-er" are irrelevant, arbitrary and capricious.

Somebody needs to hold up a semi-auto firearm equipped with a bump stock, and shake the piss out of it. Move it vigorously through the reciprocating motion - left hand, right hand, both hands - and demonstrate that not-a-damn-thing happens until you activate the trigger. And regardless of the contorted dance you perform, you still only get one bang per activation and attendant trigger-function cycle.

Listening to WBAL the other day made me remember how dumb C4 is. They were speaking about the P80 settlement with Baltimore shity.

 

[TinCuda]

This lawyer is doing some fine arguing right here.

 

[HaveBlue]

I think a simple way to explain the difference to someone who knows nothing about guns is this:

If you hold a machine gun with one hand and pull the trigger, it will fire until the magazine is empty.

If you hold a bump stock equipped rifle in one hand and pull the trigger you get exactly one shot.

Exactly the distinction described in the law.

 

[RFBfromDE]

I think a simple way to explain the difference to someone who knows nothing about guns is this:

If you hold a machine gun with one hand and pull the trigger, it will fire until the magazine is empty.

If you hold a bump stock equipped rifle in one hand and pull the trigger you get exactly one shot.

Exactly the distinction described in the law.

I’m sorry, that’s not complicated enough!

 

[TinCuda]

I was thinking Mr. Hand....

If the 1934 NFA states that a machine gun is defined as multiple shots with the single function of the trigger, wouldn't turning the selector switch from safe to fire be considered a function of the trigger? I mean the gun won't shoot unless you do it. That would then be two functions of the trigger and therefore not a machine gun.

It could continue to fire until you let off the trigger or the magazine was empty and not be construed as a machine gun. After all, you engaged two separate (not a single function) functions of the trigger before the first shot. Two functions of the trigger is beyond the scope of the definition of a machine gun, therefore NOT a machine gun.

If we are going to just make things up and interpret the law however we want, let's interpret the law how we want!

 

[HaveBlue]

I was thinking Mr. Hand....

If the 1934 NFA states that a machine gun is defined as multiple shots with the single function of the trigger, wouldn't turning the selector switch from safe to fire be considered a function of the trigger? I mean the gun won't shoot unless you do it. That would then be two functions of the trigger and therefore not a machine gun.

It could continue to fire until you let off the trigger or the magazine was empty and not be construed as a machine gun. After all, you engaged two separate (not a single function) functions of the trigger before the first shot. Two functions of the trigger is beyond the scope of the definition of a machine gun, therefore NOT a machine gun.

If we are going to just make things up and interpret the law however we want, let's interpret the law how we want!

I think you are on to something!