comment: >
  
  
  Machine guns for everybody!
  
  Oprah, probably.
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. >
  
  Good. More things having to go through Congress is a good thing! Up next, student loans. Again, that's a good thing. >
  
  No. Forcing this to go through a purposely deadlocked body that is also tilted against the majority of the population is NOT a good thing. >
  
  I’m not sure I can agree with you. Laws should be passed through proper procedure through congress. It’s their function. 
  But that’s my two cents. >
  
  It’s the constitutional power of the judiciary to decide how to implement laws. That’s the foundation of our entire system of justice, it’s literally the only way it works. >
  
  Right and their isn't a law that bans bump stocks as congress hasn't passed one. The law congress has passed says a machine gun is any firearm that fires more than once per trigger pull, A firearm with a bump stock still only fires 1 round per trigger pull, same with the frt. >
  
  The 5th Circuit. The one Repubs have stacked with crazies. >
  
  Now do braces. >
  
  This basically handles that too. And FRTs. Court said the ATF can't just create regulations as they see fit that isn't supported by written law. >
  
  Very legal and very cool. So constitutional. >
  
  I don't know any credible gun person who thinks bump stocks are okay. The goal of every responsible gun user is control of the weapon and bump stocks undermine that control.
  Banning bump stocks seems like clear responsible safety regulation. If you want to fire fully automatic and waste hundreds of dollars in less than a minute,  there are gun ranges where you can do so. >
  
  Is that because thinking automatic weapons shouldn’t be banned (sort of) is how you determine the “credibility” of these people. Bump stocks are definitely dumb, but they shouldn’t be illegal. >
  
  If you look at crimes commited by legally owned full autos that weren't owned by cops you could count them on one hand.
  Non gun people get scared by accessories and spend millions wasting time trying to ban them.
  They want a full ban and go inch by inch until they're there. Just like the pro-life crowd. >
  
  Except a full gun ban would save children's lives. >
  
  Please ban cars next or increase the standards to achieve a license. They kill only just slightly less. >
  
  Deal. >
  
  Agreed! I don’t see why we have to tolerate senseless death by one means and not another. >
  
  In case you were asking, yes this is the 5th circuit.
  This exact same challenge has failed in the 6th, the 10th, the federal circuit, and previously a panel of the 5th (this was heard "en banc" by the full 5th circuit judges and supercedes the merit panel decision). >
  
  It wasn't the exact same challenge.    
  It was a challenge to the same regulation- but challenged on different grounds. >
  
  So many people in this thread not realizing that you can bump fire without one of these stocks. >
  
  So you are saying to be effective we should probably limit all semi automatic rifles ? >
  
  No, we should repeal the NFA >
  
  Would that help limit gun violence in the US? >
  
  It would eliminate draconian restrictions on our rights. >
  
  Draconian? That severe? So you don't own any guns? I would think draconian would mean you would be severely punished for merely possessing guns? >
  
  And thanks to the NFA, there are guns that we are severely punished for merely possessing, >
  
  So you think there should be unrestricted access to any type of firearm? >
  
  No. I agree with some restrictions as to who can own a firearm (ie the laws pertaining to domestic abusers and stuff like that), where you can shoot, and some other restrictions of that nature. However a law abiding citizen should be able to own any type of firearm they so choose. I think it ridiculous to limit the second amendment based on barrel length and rate of fire.
  I’m fully aware that this’ll never happen as I’m well in the minority opinion here, but it’s still what I think >
  
  So you're okay with say a bazooka for private use?
  And as I understand it you can own fully automatic weapons, they just require money and paperwork. >
  
  Not that I shoot very muck but I have never seen a bump stock. I have seen videos how to emulate one using string or a rubber band.
  I don't think a ban would make q practical difference. >
  
  If someone is going to use a bump stock to kill over 50 people, can we at least inconvenience them into having to build their own?
  Why do we have to make it easy. >
  
  Only one of the dozens of rifles used in the Mandalay Bay shooting had a bump stock. If anything they make the gun so inaccurate at that distance, it probably saved lives that day to be honest. The large caliber hunting rifles on tripods with scopes probably did most of the damage. >
  
  Good. Now tackle the NFA. >
  
  Let’s just dismantle the 2A instead. >
  
  Good luck with that lmao >
  
  There is nothing more anti-American than standing in defense of the murder of your neighbors. The 2A is a sham. >
  
  You know what I'm curious, how do you plan to abolish the second amendment and rid the country of guns, exactly >
  
  This ban was always very flimsy, wouldn’t be surprised in the least to see it tossed out entirely >
  
  Yet it stood up just fine to multiple other federal court challenges. Doesn't seem flimsy to me. Just to one extremely partisan circuit. >
  
  Most laws don’t get challenged or lose any any of them. Multiple challenges including one that got it overturned seems pretty flimsy to me. >
  
  Conservatives are hell bent on challenging everything they disagree with so no that doesn’t make it flimsy at all. >
  
  Glad to see this shitty Trump policy being taken down. Still got a lot more of Tangerine Palpatine’s legacy to do away with though >
  
  The only guns allowed to civilians should be pump, bolt, or lever action. Handguns should also be banned.
  No one, I repeat no civilian, needs a semi automatic a weapon.
  Sure they’re cool and you probably think you look bad-ass with your AK or Glock. 
  There is literally no necessity for semi or fully automatic weapons.
  And before you go on to talk about all the unnecessary shit I own, I agree. I wish we didn’t have technology, modern medicine or other comforts.  Survival of the fittest would have made the human race stronger than the advancements in civilization >
  
  Interesting. So on your principals you don’t seek medical attention? For any illness ever? >
  
  Guy must be Dwight schrute lmao >
  
  I was thinking of introducing them to some old order Amish. They might get along. >
  
  Yay more innocent victims! /s >
  
  The atf isn’t an innocent victim. >
  
  Guys we really aren't considering how much less convenient mass shootings would be if these were banned. Mass shooters are people too. >
  
  Reddit.. Don't kill me with downdoots..
  I have owned a Bump Stock.  When the initial "ban" was issued.. I complied.  My issue with the ban...
  I'm a law abiding citizen... I paid money for the bump stock.  I paid tax... on the bump stock.  I should be compensated.   I know this might sound petty.. maybe it is. >
  
  How much was it? >
  
  around 200 I think.. maybe more.  Was a long time ago. >
  
  Personally I'm not opposed to the idea of buy-backs (I think that's what they are called). >
  
  It’s not a buy back if the government didn’t sell it it’s a confiscation >
  
  Correct >
  
  Which means the adjacent block on FRT's is one too
  Halleluyah >
  
  As is the pistol brace/SBR ruling. >
  
  16inch barrel and a stock? Fine.
  15.5 inch barrel and a stock? Felon.
  Fucking stupid. >
  
  Finally some sense on r/politics. >
  
  Defacto machine gun legislation. Shout out to all my fellow Americans who wouldn’t dream of violence save maybe self defense. We deserve better than this and please take care of yourselves as it gets more and more dangerous out here. >
  
  You love to see it >
  
  We still don’t have any explanation for the Mandalay Bay shooting. >
  
  Looking for explanations is a way of shifting the focus away from how it happened. No bump stocks = far fewer dead and wounded. Why the guy did it is a secondary issue. But it makes for a nice distraction if that's what some people are looking for. >
  
  I disagree with you. Bump stocks are hard to use and even harder to use when you have to aim down.  I think the dozens of large caliber hunting rifles on tripods with scopes probably did far more damage that day than the one intermediate rifle he had with a bump stock on it. >
  
  that's 2 rounds a second. I can do that without a bump stock, binary trigger or bump firing. that's 2 trigger pulls a second, not hard. Guys pull the trigger faster when mag dumping. >
  
  US Courts believe Conservatives have the right to slaughter innocent women and children apparently. >
  
  Is that what was decided? >
  
  Trump couldn’t even get that right. >
  
  What part of shall not be infringed do people not understand? We need less government in our lives not more. >
  
  Good grief… >
  
  You going to elaborate bud? >
  
  Gun fetishists gonna gun fetish. >
  
  Turning people into felons overnight for legally owning something is cool tho. >
  
  We NEED these to function as a society.       /s >
  
  They're a little used accessory.
  Banning them does fuck all. >
  
  The opinion (PDF) >
  
  RIP innocent people >
  
  Because the founding fathers wanted us to be able to murder as many people as quickly as possible. >
  
  Well they didn't just get back from a hunting trip. >
  
  'Hey maybe we should ban this thing that allows psychotics with guns to kill a metric ton of people in a really short period of time?"
  US appeals court: "nah." >
  
  Nice, let’s keep them legal 💪🏻 >
  
  At this point, they should just legalize fully automatic machine guns. What possible justification to continue to ban weapons of war could be consistent with all the decisions they've already made? >
  
  And how many legal full autos have been used in a crime?
  That weren't owned by cops. >
  
  Isn't that an argument for legalizing them? >
  
  i want all of the corrupted judges and villains of this country to understand this and understand it well.
  ​
  there will come a time when you are judged by the people and we will remember all of this. >
  
  We really are completely and totally fucked. And we’ve only done it to ourselves. Or allowed it to happen. >
  
  Vegas all over again. >
  
  I remember when Vegas happened and I called it bump stocks in the first few minutes of videos dropping... and gun nutters told me I was stupid and it couldn't possibly be bump stocks, that he had to have modified automatic guns. That shit was very personal and you could tell there was a minor variance in the way the bullets shot, which would be due to his arm getting hammered.