« Ironic | Main | Rahimi decided »
Bump stock Supreme Court opinion
Opinion here. You can find a very good analysis at SCOTUSBlog, here.
It isn't a 2A case, but one of statutory construction. The majority holds that a bump stock equipped rifle neither fires more than one shot per trigger function, nor does so "automatically," both of which are required for a firearm to be a machine-gun under the NFA. Alito concurs to stress that Congress can fix the statute if it likes.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
…And that attitude of Justice Wise Latinx is why Progressiveness is being renounced countrywide. Would that the HighNine crush Chevron completely and return to the Constitutional mandate of law made by elected representatives and no longer farmed out to snidely serpents.
There are some 2A implications for this. The wise old Latina came out and admitted that bump stocks had to be used in conjunction with commonly owned semi-automatic rifles (she may even have said assault weapon, can't recall and can't check my download here on my phone), thus negating the antis
claims about them being dangerous _or_ unusual (she effectively said they are neither). The main opinion destroys the 4th and 7th Circuit claims that semi-autos are basically the same as a machine gun. That argument has had a stake driven through its heart.
JR Tucker would disagree stating emphatically as he did in his 2 vol work that the CC DOES NOT cover regulating things in commerce. That lie was created by the usurpers in black robes. Every law, rule and reg concerning things is unconstitutional regardless of the idiocy of the judges on any court. Once one judge fudges it, the rest never have the courage or proper restraint to fix the errors.
"The main opinion destroys the 4th and 7th Circuit claims that semi-autos are basically the same as a machine gun."
This is why I think the Illinois cases have about a 25% chance to get granted, vacated, and remanded to the circuit for rulings consistent with Cargill.
The weapons are in common use, so they fail the dangerous-and-unusual test. They are arms, and aren't machineguns. The lower courts will muck it about and the cases, plus more, will return to SCOTUS in a few years. That outcome is satisfactory, though suboptimal, for the disarmament lobby.
"The lower courts will muck it about "
meaning, they'll intentionally misapply Cargill, misapply Bruen, invent new tests, invert burdens.
Of course, you have a copy of the Constitution in which "in common use", "dangerous and unusual" are included in the exceptions test part of the 2nd. All that stuff is made up by lying judges. We have been co-opted by lying judges since the sitting of the 1st SC. These judges keep these pies in place in order to have a hole through which to drive a semi if and when they need to control the People.
IMO, the judiciary have destroyed more of our God endowed Rights than any other government group. The entire judiciary of the Union haven't the cojones to properly step up and say: NO INFRINGEMENT and the judiciary has similarly allowed government overstepping our Law for the govt, the Constitution.
Sotomayor's dissent exemplifies the problem with courts today. Congress may have very well intended for the legislation to cover this scenario, but the plain text of the statute is insufficient to do so.
It's plainly obvious that her solution is to contort the law as written to reach her desired outcome of banning the devices. It does not matter what the law says. Whatever makes her liberal heart happy is what she can make morph it into.