Cargill v Garland (5th Circuit Bump Stock Case)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,229
    Davidsonville
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,887
    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.
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,909
    AA County
    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
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,496
    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

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,558
    Texas
    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

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,007
    Millers Maryland
    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

    Defenestration Specialist
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,218
    Frederick County
    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

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,921
    Westminster, MD
    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

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,496
    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".
     

    RFBfromDE

    W&C MD, UT, PA
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 21, 2022
    12,421
    The Land of Pleasant Living
    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

    Thread killer
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Feb 22, 2013
    8,007
    Millers Maryland
    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.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    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

    W&C MD, UT, PA
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 21, 2022
    12,421
    The Land of Pleasant Living
    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

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,558
    Texas
    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!
     
    Last edited:

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    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!
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,342
    Messages
    7,277,804
    Members
    33,437
    Latest member
    Mantis

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom