This is the Thomas opinion: a parsing of firing mechanics to assess of whether a semiautomatic rifle with bump stock meets the federal definition of "machine gun"
Sotomayor: "Every Member of the majority has previously emphasized that the best way to respect congressional intent is to adhere to the ordinary understanding of the terms Congress uses. ... Today, the majority forgets that principle."
I honestly can't tell if this is Alito actually endorsing this idea or the usual BS where they strike things down b/c Congress used the wrong synonym for something and mockingly tell Congress to just edit the wording of the law if it's so important knowing that legislation does not work that way.
He didn't have any problem changing the statutory language himself in the student loans case to eliminate the grant of authority to "waive our modify" the loans.
this is the rare instance when it will be political malpractice if Schumer doesn't demand a bill today
Rosen is in a race w/a veteran who has an opportunity here to show NV voters that he's no extremist, he's just a Republican
(but he won a GOP primary so he won't be able to do it & stay solvent)
this is so ridiculous. "5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what kind of input engages the trigger..." EXACTLY, it doesn't matter HOW the rate of fire is achieved, it's the rate of fire that defines it. His argument is an argument for why he's wrong!
by Thomas's logic here, if I somehow legally got my entirely metaphorical hands on an M249 and mounted it on a drone designed to fire it, it would cease to be a "machinegun" because the trigger isn't being operated by a finger.
this is pants on head, but if you don’t care about horrific massacres, the claim has a better veneer of logic than the decision that notices to appear are valid without saying when/where to appear.
a real “guns don’t kill people; their recoil does automatically but not in a machinegun way” moment.
The court says that the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms cannot 'redefine' that a bumpstock makes a semi-automatic into an automatic gun, and that only Congress can. Sadly this is a common theme for the Roberts court. Past rulings did the same, saying, "you want to change? Get congress to do it."
I get that THIS court likes Congress to take a more active approach when it comes to defining/redefining things. Bureaus like FEMA have really crossed the lines on many rule-changes & Congress has been ceding much of its power to the Executive. Still this is just common sense, court got it WRONG!
Thomas's interpretation of "single function of the trigger" seems extremely far-reaching. By his logic, an Akins accelerator (spring-powered bump stock) is also not a machine gun. Nor is any other device that accelerates firing by pulling the trigger rapidly over and over again.
So you can simply mount a battery powered trigger-pressing-device to the trigger guard, as that will technically cause the trigger to be pulled once per shot, and it does not matter whether the trigger-presser, activated by your stationary finger, or the flexing of the finger, causes the shot.
I'm sure the families of the dead in Las Vegas are relieved to hear their loved ones were merely struck down by a bumpfired semiauto and NOT a machinegun. 🙄 OMFG these SCOTUS ghouls....
