Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban

[Rob Boudrie]

A classic example of bad cases make bad law.

It does not take a legal genius to realize that this case would present an incredible temptation for the justices to rule based on desired public policy rather than law and stare decesis.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I keep thinking that these cases go over awfully when I listen to them, but then I listen to Mark Smith from the 4 boxes diner and he generally offers a completely different perspective.

 

[p..]

That was awful. The lawyer for the client was terrible and if I'm in the jug, he's not getting a call. Most of the argument was "function of the trigger vs. a trigger is not a function crap" without actually getting into how the firing mechanisms differ in plain simple English of a semi auto trigger resetting vs. full auto flow.

I agree it was painful to listen to. It sounded good at first, until the Justices started pressing him, then he started sounding whiny and unable to defend. I actually shut it off part way in as I couldn't stand it any more.

That was very disheartening.

 

[Noreaster]

A classic example of bad cases make bad law.

It does not take a legal genius to realize that this case would present an incredible temptation for the justices to rule based on desired public policy rather than law and stare decesis.

The MA Glock case and this case is making me realize, there is no requirement for the judges to understand facts and function to make rulings. Justice jackson seriously thinks (or at least is taking the position) that a bumpstock makes multiple projectiles to egress the barrel with a single function of the trigger.

 

[Joeldiaz]

A classic example of bad cases make bad law.

It does not take a legal genius to realize that this case would present an incredible temptation for the justices to rule based on desired public policy rather than law and stare decesis.

I mean as far as I know this was the best of the bump stock cases to reach SCOTUS. If this is a bad case, then things were going to be bleak no matter what.

 

[Uzi2]

The MA Glock case and this case is making me realize, there is no requirement for the judges to understand facts and function to make rulings. Justice jackson seriously thinks (or at least is taking the position) that a bumpstock makes multiple projectiles to egress the barrel with a single function of the trigger.

That's because they function on emotion and public opinion rather than scientific fact and having the intellectual curiosity to secure those facts.

 

[Taipan01]

Remember we are not his audience - the court is and most of them have less knowledge than your average cop.

That's the point. There were ample opportunities to swing into what the differences are with simple explanations and not being side tracked between having two boxes, three boxes and every other interruption to stay on target but he failed miserably.

 

[Woodsloafer]

I've lost all confidence in the Supreme Court, a bunch of compromised partisans.

Yup, 100%, and anyone in MA who thinks that SCOTUS is going to save us from the new laws that are coming (if lawsuits even ever reach SCOTUS) is completely fooling themselves.

.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I mean as far as I know this was the best of the bump stock cases to reach SCOTUS. If this is a bad case, then things were going to be bleak no matter what.

Cases like thie give the government the chance to tighten the noose, and make further noose tightening even easier.

I would rather see cases like "May a state deprive an individual of 2A rights because of conviction for a federal misdeleanor that does not create prohibited person status"

or "It is acceptable to deny discovery an accept heresay evidence in a court proceeding to strip someone of their constititional rights"

or any of a slew of due process cases. Cases like this bump stock one invite a supposedly not to be used "interest balancing" approach.

 

[allen-1]

600 rounds per second with a bump stock - IN

SCOTUS Justice Jackson Just Said the Dumbest Thing About Guns and I Can't Stop Laughing

pjmedia.com

 

[Joeldiaz]

You missed the beginning where Justice Gorsuch said something along the lines of “I can understand why these devices should be banned…” before getting into why they can’t. Just goes to show you how they feel about machine guns being dangerous and unusual weapons not protected by 2A.

Justice Barrett also made a comment in passing about being sympathetic to the government’s position about banning bump stocks because they act like machine guns.

Just those two Justices alone (Gorsuch & Barret) are enough to give liberals the majority they need to say that machine guns aren’t protected by 2A. I’d bet dollars to donuts that if a future machine gun case went before this current SCOTUS on 2A grounds, we’d lose either 7-2 or 8-1 with some combination of Alito & Thomas in the dissent.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

That's the point. There were ample opportunities to swing into what the differences are with simple explanations and not being side tracked between having two boxes, three boxes and every other interruption to stay on target but he failed miserably.

And things like this make me wonder if the deck is cooked.

I mean really, the ATF decided years ago that they weren’t machine guns because they didn’t meet the definition of a machine gun. Then president Trump tells them to ban bump stocks and suddenly they are machine guns and are banned. Fast forward and anything that increases the rate of fire like a FRT is a machine gun.

As said above that is the legislatures job not ATFs job.

 

[p..]

I keep thinking that these cases go over awfully when I listen to them, but then I listen to Mark Smith from the 4 boxes diner and he generally offers a completely different perspective.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Doesn’t seem like that different of a perspective, seems to agree that oral arguments weren’t the best and there’s a real chance we could lose this case.

 

[67ray]

This oral argument session was frustrating. The discussion was mostly about the word function, what the operator has to do with the bump stock, and why it isn't any different then a full auto gun. And many tropes such as the "common sense" one, the good policy one and the what the legislation means rather than says. This decision will either be a milestone or a complete shitshow

 

[VTski4x4]

This oral argument session was frustrating. The discussion was mostly about the word function, what the operator has to do with the bump stock, and why it isn't any different then a full auto gun. And many tropes such as the "common sense" one, the good policy one and the what the legislation means rather than says. This decision will either be a milestone or a complete shitshow

I'd bet my left nut on the latter

 

[Uzi2]

As is so predictable, NPR is lying their ass off both by commission and by omission on the subject.

 

[pastera]

This oral argument session was frustrating. The discussion was mostly about the word function, what the operator has to do with the bump stock, and why it isn't any different then a full auto gun. And many tropes such as the "common sense" one, the good policy one and the what the legislation means rather than says. This decision will either be a milestone or a complete shitshow

No this will be very narrow in order to secure a majority - Roberts will test the wind so a 5-4 or 6-3
Not sure if it will be Gorsuch or Thomas that kills us.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

This oral argument session was frustrating. The discussion was mostly about the word function, what the operator has to do with the bump stock, and why it isn't any different then a full auto gun. And many tropes such as the "common sense" one, the good policy one and the what the legislation means rather than says. This decision will either be a milestone or a complete shitshow

I think that was the best outcome for the anti-gun side. They add confusion and get the judges confused about how firearms really work. The question should have been about the APA and instead it devolved into nonsensical arguments about chemical reactions.

 

[pastera]

Listening again to the audio to grab the parts I missed and reading the transcript.

Petitioner (state) is inconsistent in his argument - review the transcripts page 4 lines 23-25
Fletcher argues that a bump stock fires more than one shot...through a self regulating mechanism.
Thomas catches this and gives him plenty of rope to hang his position on this error.
Thomas' killing blow to this is found in page 8 lines 2-7: Fletcher admits that bump firing doesn't require a mechanical aid.
Taking this to the next logical step then if we accept the state's argument that bump firing is automatic firing then ALL semiautomatic rifles and automatic pistols are machine guns since they can readily be modified to automatically fire by simply manipulating holding method and pressure.

On page 8 lines 1-2, Fletcher brings back the self regulating mechanism being the reason a bump stock is a machine gun whereas "manual" bump firing is not. He is in error as the regulating mechanism is the shooter's ability to hold a steady, even pressure while still allowing the forestock to reciprocate (axial movement) AND control point of aim (radial movement).
This is anything but a self regulating mechanism.
A bumpstock does allow the shooter to more easily maintain aim (reduce radial movement) but does not change the need for the shooter to actually regulate the pressure required to maintain reciprocation creating the bump firing.

Barrett then pulls the string on exactly what devices would qualify to create a machinegun mentioning a band or loop to which Fletcher responds that those devices would not be self regulating.
However the ATF has already made self regulating bumpfire devices machineguns when they determined the spring in the Atkins accelerator acted as a regulating mechanism whereby the shooter needed no further input to fire automatically. Removal of the regulating mechanism (springs) in bumpstocks is what put them outside of the NFA.
Barrett then makes the issue clear in page 13 lines 4-8: a bumpstock allows one to bumpfire in a better, more stable way but doesn't change the mode of operation from Fletcher's "manual" bump fire definition.
She then goes on to let him know that she wants to side with him - this is where I see an extremely narrow decision where we win this case but with the caveat that congress can simply rewrite the NFA to ban anything that allows more than an arbitrary firing rate.
Jackson then blathers on about non-textual interpretation of statutes for a while trying to show that if we just change the meaning of words then we can get the outcome we want.
Gorsuch is up next, opening with an open statement that he feels bumpstocks should be banned.
He then goes on to admonish the state for the method they used to ban which didn't include public comment and that by doing so stopped congress from updating the NFA to ban them.

This is where I think we ultimately lose
Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown will band together to push the opinion that all devices allowing increased rates of fire are outside the 2nd and can be banned but the ban must be handled legislatively. And Roberts will take any opportunity to split the baby and get SCOTUS out of a controversial area and go with the left.
Within 2 weeks of the opinion congress will write a very open definition of firing rate accelerator and Mr dementia will scribble on it as soon as it hits his desk.
And while they are messing with the NFA, they will scale the tax amount and link it to inflation in order to make all NFA devices prohibitively expensive.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I keep thinking that these cases go over awfully when I listen to them, but then I listen to Mark Smith from the 4 boxes diner and he generally offers a completely different perspective.

I was listening to blurbs on some gun YT channel. It's more about what the JUDGES are saying. This isn't a gun rights issue. It's a power-of-the-Executive Branch case. And the gubb'mint is gonna lose HARD on this one.

It's moot in mASS because, as an overstepping case, it has no 2A merit to overturn the law in mASS. I'm not THAT upset b/c wasting $9 a mag to mag dump my AR seems a bit silly to me.

 

[Uzi2]

Listening again to the audio to grab the parts I missed and reading the transcript.

Petitioner (state) is inconsistent in his argument - review the transcripts page 4 lines 23-25
Fletcher argues that a bump stock fires more than one shot...through a self regulating mechanism.
Thomas catches this and gives him plenty of rope to hang his position on this error.
Thomas' killing blow to this is found in page 8 lines 2-7: Fletcher admits that bump firing doesn't require a mechanical aid.
Taking this to the next logical step then if we accept the state's argument that bump firing is automatic firing then ALL semiautomatic rifles and automatic pistols are machine guns since they can readily be modified to automatically fire by simply manipulating holding method and pressure.

On page 8 lines 1-2, Fletcher brings back the self regulating mechanism being the reason a bump stock is a machine gun whereas "manual" bump firing is not. He is in error as the regulating mechanism is the shooter's ability to hold a steady, even pressure while still allowing the forestock to reciprocate (axial movement) AND control point of aim (radial movement).
This is anything but a self regulating mechanism.
A bumpstock does allow the shooter to more easily maintain aim (reduce radial movement) but does not change the need for the shooter to actually regulate the pressure required to maintain reciprocation creating the bump firing.

Barrett then pulls the string on exactly what devices would qualify to create a machinegun mentioning a band or loop to which Fletcher responds that those devices would not be self regulating.
However the ATF has already made self regulating bumpfire devices machineguns when they determined the spring in the Atkins accelerator acted as a regulating mechanism whereby the shooter needed no further input to fire automatically. Removal of the regulating mechanism (springs) in bumpstocks is what put them outside of the NFA.
Barrett then makes the issue clear in page 13 lines 4-8: a bumpstock allows one to bumpfire in a better, more stable way but doesn't change the mode of operation from Fletcher's "manual" bump fire definition.
She then goes on to let him know that she wants to side with him - this is where I see an extremely narrow decision where we win this case but with the caveat that congress can simply rewrite the NFA to ban anything that allows more than an arbitrary firing rate.
Jackson then blathers on about non-textual interpretation of statutes for a while trying to show that if we just change the meaning of words then we can get the outcome we want.
Gorsuch is up next, opening with an open statement that he feels bumpstocks should be banned.
He then goes on to admonish the state for the method they used to ban which didn't include public comment and that by doing so stopped congress from updating the NFA to ban them.

This is where I think we ultimately lose
Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan and Brown will band together to push the opinion that all devices allowing increased rates of fire are outside the 2nd and can be banned but the ban must be handled legislatively. And Roberts will take any opportunity to split the baby and get SCOTUS out of a controversial area and go with the left.
Within 2 weeks of the opinion congress will write a very open definition of firing rate accelerator and Mr dementia will scribble on it as soon as it hits his desk.
And while they are messing with the NFA, they will scale the tax amount and link it to inflation in order to make all NFA devices prohibitively expensive.

They can write anything the want, doesn't mean anyone is going to abide by it. It will just give even more reason for people to become just like congress.....openly and blatantly disobedient to the law.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I was listening to blurbs on some gun YT channel. It's more about what the JUDGES are saying. This isn't a gun rights issue. It's a power-of-the-Executive Branch case. And the gubb'mint is gonna lose HARD on this one.

I don’t think so. There’s a real good chance we lose on this one if oral arguments are any indication. Sounds like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are the potential swing votes here.

 

[Woodsloafer]

I don’t think so. There’s a real good chance we lose on this one if oral arguments are any indication. Sounds like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are the potential swing votes here.

I agree, I don't see us winning this one at all.

 

[71montess]

I mean as far as I know this was the best of the bump stock cases to reach SCOTUS. If this is a bad case, then things were going to be bleak no matter what.

The lawyers for cases going to the SC should come from the best gun organizations possible. Can't we all agree on this in the future ?

 

[pastera]

I don’t think so. There’s a real good chance we lose on this one if oral arguments are any indication. Sounds like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh are the potential swing votes here.

99% change we lose either directly in the opinion or secondarily from the dicta in the opinion opening up the language of what can be banned to essentially all semi-autos.

 

[inerlogic]

they need to grant cert on an AWB case and double down on shit like miller and caetano

 

[Joeldiaz]

they need to grant cert on an AWB case and double down on shit like miller and caetano

Probably not gonna happen anytime soon

 

[GM-GUY]

If I gave a rats ass about the government anymore - I might be concerned about this ruling - but nothing I can do about it.

When a government willingly supplies terrorists with blackhawks, light and heavy weapons as well as funding terrorist states - they have lost all moral ground and broken the covenant between the people and government as defined in the United States Constitution. Lets not even get into accepting bribes and spending us into oblivion.

 

[inerlogic]

If I gave a rats ass about the government anymore - I might be concerned about this ruling - but nothing I can do about it.

When a government willingly supplies terrorists with blackhawks, light and heavy weapons as well as funding terrorist states - they have lost all moral ground and broken the covenant between the people and government as defined in the United States Constitution. Lets not even get into accepting bribes and spending us into oblivion.

i care because it directly affects what i can buy.... and yes, i have money, i'll buy whatever TF i want... but none of that does me any good if a dealer won't sell the thing to me because THEY are scared of the government...