comment: >
  
  Good. More things having to go through Congress is a good thing! Up next, student loans. Again, that's a good thing.
context: This creates a circuit split, meaning it is much more likely the Supreme Court will take it up if asked. Another case to look forward to in the future. >
  
  Meaning the 5th circuit court will be upheld. >
  
  At this rate, soon felons will legally own firearms. >
  
  Yeah but how do you actually enforce these laws? >
  
  By prosecuting when prohibited people are found to be in possession. >
  
  How do you find them to be in possession? Does the ATF install security cameras in every domicile in which a felon happens to live? >
  
  Republicans must be furious that the courts stopped Trump's bump stock ban. >
  
  Folks in the gun community of my deeply red state have been very accepting of the ban.
  But from reading the article, it looks like it’s the issue of whether bump stocks meet the legal definition of ‘machinegun’ in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act. >
  
  It’s super interesting because the gun community started to split around that time between what seems like the constitutionalists, the maga deep red republicans, and the more moderates. 
  I don’t really know where I stand on bump stocks as someone who is generally pro gun, but it was interesting to watch the schism form in real time. >
  
  I noticed within left-leaning circles there’s been a divide about it as well.
  Could be partially about trust in government; I’m not sure where I fall either but I know I wouldn’t want to leave these things up to ambiguous interpretation by law enforcement agencies. >
  
  Absolutely. The ATF should not be allowed to interpret laws on a whim. That frustrates the hell out of me. They act like they’re both executive and judicial branch. >
  
  Our courts literally cannot do the right thing, ever. >
  
  I don't understand how this got shopped around as much as it did. Per the article, "The ban had survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the federalcircuit court in Washington. A panel of three judges at the 5th Circuitalso issued a ruling in favor of the ban, upholding a lower courtdecision by a Texas federal judge."
  How do we have rule of law if someone can just infinitely shop until they find the right Circuit to kill laws?  
  EDIT: I suppose it would be better to say 'regulation' than 'law', but the general point and my confusion stands. >
  
  
  I don't understand how this got shopped around as much as it did.
  
  Different people in different states bringing suits in their local jurisdictions. >
  
  It’s a federal ban though. >
  
  Yes, but the way that federal courts work is that you'd challenge the legality of a federal criminal law in the federal district where you were charged. >
  
  Right, but if the judges actually applied the law evenly, the locale where you sued wouldn’t affect the ruling. The 5th circuit is a clown show. >
  
  Based on the language in the national firearms act and the way a bump stock actually works, this seems like right decision to me.
  In order to be a machine gun it has to fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. A bump stock fires one shot each time the trigger is pulled. Just because it seems like a machine gun doesn't matter. It has to fit the definition in the law. 
  The ATF had even previously said they were not machine guns. A bunch of manufacturers sent in letters asking if they were machine guns, the ATF sent back a bunch of letters saying they're not. Trump put the screws to the ATF and they changed their mind. It's always been a stretch. It should have been addressed through the legislature if they were going to be banned. >
  
  It’s a matter of letter of the law vs spirit of the law. Bump stocks violate the spirit but not the letter. >
  
  Yeah, exactly. The letter is the law. You could make some argument about legislative intent, the spirit, if it was more vague. But they spell it out pretty clearly in the national firearms act. I'm surprised the ban has been upheld at all.
  There have also been a bunch of court decisions saying ar-15 lower receivers are not firearm receivers, as defined in the NFA. They defined it narrowly enough that they don't fit the description in the act, nor does any other part of them. Another case of letter and spirit. 
  The attorney General under Obama was asked to review one of the ar-15 lower receiver cases, where the court ruled it was not a firearm receiver per the NFA. She reviewed, said she found no reason to appeal, and then wrote letters to the house and senate asking them to resolve the situation legislatively. And it's sat there since. The ATF just pretends like it never happened, while the number of decisions slowly grow. >
  
  Bump stocks coming to a school near you. >
  
  Interesting how states with weak gun laws have highest rates of gun violence - Kansas, Alaska, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Arizona, Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, Idaho and Mississippi. 
  While states with strict gun laws have the lowest rates of gun violence - California, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey.
  🤔 >
  
  Yeah, it's a complex topic. I think Wyoming illustrates that it's not exactly a gun problem, but a systemic problem with the biggest part being mental health. >
  
  If you think it’s a mental health issue, then my question is why don’t you support background checks? >
  
  You mean the bump stocks used in the largest mass shooting in modern American history leaving 58 dead in Las Vegas. The next step will be to let any gun owner have automatic weapons without a permit "cause 2nd amendment  Bubu". >
  
  There were no laws in the 1800's banning automatic weapons or bump stocks.
  So soon there will be no restrictions left. >
  
  There's no laws banning Gatling guns or nuclear arms. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" Where's my nuclear deterrent? >
  
  
  There's no laws banning Gatling guns
  
  I know you don't actually care because this is a strawman argument but:
  Gatling guns are actually legal WITHOUT an NFA tax stamp because they're crank operated rather than automatic.  Tippman makes a snazzy 9mm version if you have $6,000 available.
  And nuclear arms are technically available if you can fill out all the appropriate paperwork and meet the international standards for ownership of all the constituent materiel. >
  
  I love pointing this out to people, like when Biden said you couldn't have a canon >
  
  The scotus EPA ruling almost guaranted this. For 2 decades bump stocks weren't machine guns, then they were. Like the EPA ruling the courts are going to make congress pass the law vs allowing the ATF to do so.