• 0 Posts
  • 68 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2023

help-circle


  • You went into a ton of detail, thank you. But it is meaningless under the original definition of the act.

    “The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”

    A bump stock modifies the frame of the gun which converts it into a fully automatic weapon. Don’t just get stuck on the trigger part of the action. The act covers everything, you just can’t cherry pick a single clause and ignore everything else. Otherwise they just might make you into one of Trump’s Supreme Court justices.







  • That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited. A court that is very big on textual meaning, as it purports to be, would readily agree, unless bias is in the driver’s seat.

    This conservative supreme court despised regulatory agencies . For decades the US government has relied upon such agencies as subject experts and has allowed them to regulate their areas. This court just wants to reverse this common sense and established way of doing things. I might remind you that the bump stock thing wasn’t a democrat initiative, but a bipartisan Trump one.



  • I actually looked up the legalisation one time. Congress described a machine gun and gave all the definitions that were forbidden to alter it to make it automatic fire. It was pretty comprehensive, particularly given that it was written in the 80s. However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.

    And I don’t believe that you are a gun nut at all. You seem perfectly reasonable and make a good point.


  • I think that arresting a Supreme isn’t going to happen. For a start the legal machinations and appeals will take at least two years. But, a subpoena is at least fighting back, and a threat. What is the alternative? Hand wringing?

    The Conservatives wake up each and every day actively trying to destroy the American republic. Do you think that overturning Roe was just luck? That was a 25 year process. I’m not advocating violence, but just not taking it when your balls get stomped. There are shocking things that can be done. Boosting the bench to overcome the current bias, bringing in terms limits, and subpoenas for corruption. The subpoena won’t necessarily lead to impeachment or arrest, but it will bring out every little dirty detail in public. Do you think that’s not a threat to a dirty bench?