A Texas gun shop owner challenged the ban, arguing the Justice Department wrongly classified the accessories as illegal machine guns.
  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    14·
    5 months ago

    Because anyone needs a few hundred rounds a minute for hunting or personal defense of course. Wonder if there’s a path to sanity by attacking the proponents of these things obvious lack of skill (spray and pray) that they need to compensate for. Can’t let anyone question their abilities right?

    • AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org
      6·
      5 months ago

      The most ridiculous part about it to me is that you lose any semblance of accuracy with it. Not only is it not necessary for hunting or home defense, I’d argue it is not useful.

      Its use is that is probably pretty fun to fire at a shooting range, and very useful if you want to fire into a crowd of people and indiscriminately kill as many as you can.

  • megabat@lemm.ee
    8·
    5 months ago

    FWIW you can bump fire without a bump stock, It just requires a little bit of manual dexterity

    • 4dpuzzle@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think that you can exercise such fine motor skills while you are shooting up a school or other mass gatherings - which was the whole point of the ban in the first place.

      I don’t understand the kind of sociopathy required (by the judges in question) to seek an excuse to pedantically redefine a device whose whole original purpose is killing people en-masse.

      • megabat@lemm.ee
        1·
        5 months ago

        I’m not interested in discussing the first paragraph but for the second; as I understand it you have to define something before you can regulate it. The pedantry is over the definition of a machine gun in that a bump stock doesn’t really apply because each bump is a separate action by the operator, and the court apparently agreed. The definition of a machine gun can be changed perhaps to define a maximum rate of fire instead of number of rounds fired per trigger pull or something.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    4·
    5 months ago

    In a country with [checks notes] a:

    “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives”

    Let’s reflect for a moment on what it means to bunch all those things together.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault rifles in 2017.

    The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas said a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.

    “A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate functions of the trigger,” Thomas wrote in an opinion that contained multiple drawings of guns’ firing mechanisms.

    The Biden administration said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives made the right choice for the gun accessories, which can allow weapons to fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute.

    Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn’t transform semiautomatic weapons into machine guns.

    The plaintiff, Texas gun shop owner and military veteran Michael Cargill, was represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group funded by conservative donors like the Koch network.

    Saved 74% of original text.