DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cargill vs Garland

Goal post move.

Glock switches, one example of such devices, does fall under the definition 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23) as a machine gun. So, yes they are machine guns.

I'm not sure how that justifies making such things legal. You can also buy heroin in every city and town in America and I still don't want the court system to make heroin legal.

People having the ability to do something by some other method doesn't make it right to justify their ability to do it.

I get what you're saying but making it legal to do so is another matter all together.

You can't understand technical terms so you resort to silly colored fonts.

When caught with an illegal machine gun they don't charge you with possession of an automatic weapon, they charge you with machine gun possession. This is simple, but you need something to argue.

This may well be the stupidest argument you have ever made, which is impressive.

So then are you saying a pistol converted to fully automatic is called a machine gun? Blaming me because you're dancing around the issue isn't helping you. And since when did machine gun become a technical term? lol

Says someone making the most stupid argument ever. See how easy that is? Of course it is the easiest road to travel when they avoid admitting that a fully automatic pistol isn't a machine. Which would mean that all fully automatic weapons aren't machine guns. But keep dancing.

I am not dancing around anything, but look at you trying to be all butch.

A pistol using a Glock switch IS a machine gun under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23). Only you would see my definite statement as dancing.

Do you understand how the switch works? Fairly simply for you, when you use the switch and pull the trigger the pistol fires until it runs out of ammunition or you take your finger off the trigger. Usually it runs out of ammunition because small magazines go fast.

A bump stock does not function the same way.

An again:


Machineguns fire automatically, the law does not refer to them as "automatic weapons". You are welcome.

You want someone to make it illegal to hold a in a way you could bump fire it. I mean, seriously? You can't see the utter stupidity in the mere mention of the idea?

I have a bridge you might want to buy.

With some practice, you can achieve the same results with a shoulder strap. I have never been able to do it more than maybe 4 rounds, but have seen people rattle off a full clip with ease.

I don't own a weapon like that, just fooling around with a friends at the range one day so I have no need to practice the technique.

I don't think a shoulder strap should be banned. That is a very safe way to carry a long gun.

Only in wording. Stupid is as stupid does. Kill as many as possible. Die suckers, and all they’ll get is thoughts and prayers. The SCOTUS has spoken. Make it so.

Not for nothing, and this coming from a guy who knows nothing about guns, But if a gun is to operate like a fully automatic weapon, and you buy a part that makes it do that, then doesn't it become a fully automatic weapon in practice?

Automatic weapon: Hold trigger down and it fires until it runs out of ammo

Bump Stock weapon: Hold trigger down and it fires until it runs out of ammo


Simple view of it, but it appears that a bump stock turns it into an automatic weapon. The result is the same!

Right?

This is what it is no matter how loudly you yell that it isn't.....

Peen, a shoulder strap was not specifically designed to make a rifle perform as a fully automatic weapon. Misusing something for an unintended purpose is not the same as designing and manufacturing something that's for the specific purpose of making a weapon perform the same as illegal weapons and then a court putting their stamp of approval on it. That's actually a pretty simple concept.

I know people who have bump stocks for their rifles. I also own such rifles myself. Here's what I can tell you is certainly factual. With a rapid fire bump stock there is no accuracy on your shots. The first one you do have the opportunity to take aim. After that the following shots go in the general direction you are pointing the weapon but not with any degree of accuracy. The only thing that's good for is aiming into a crowd of people that are grouped closely together exactly the way the Las Vegas shooter did. When people are grouped that close together it's far more likely you will hit people even though there's no way you will know which of those people in that group it will hit because you lack the ability to aim each shot at a specific target.

It make mass murder easier. It makes a huge increase in mass casualties the outcome. In Las Vegas 58 were killed and almost 500 others were injured. Anyone who would say that a stock designed and sold with the very purpose of inflicting this kind of damage should get a seal of approval from the SCOTUS, I'm not sure what's wrong with them.

Bump stocks require a bit of balance, you have to push forward on the foregrip while pressing the trigger. Do it wrong and it doesn't work. It does not negate the idea that the trigger functions multiple times as per the statutory definition.

Ironically the ATF may have gotten in the way of congress changing the statutory definition by doing it themselves. That mistake by the executive means this is the case that moved up through the courts to be heard.

In case anyone actually cares to read it: Garland v. Cargill (22-976)

And just like that you sound like the dissent's reasoning on why other bump fire methods are ok, but bump stocks themselves aren't because they are too controllable.

I wonder, though, how all this fits the statutory definition of machine gun, that ATF decided to change.

I know you believe as technology changes the rules should remain the same. Maybe "just like that" is due to actually seeing people use bump stocks in person I understand their purpose. If you actually want to know how the dissenting side sees it, here you go............

Justice Sotomayor said it perfectly:

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”

You keep insisting it's a chicken.

Did you happen to listen to orals? Let me put some context on the duck. "the right of fire is the same or very similar" This was the major question from the dissenting side. It isn't the focus of the dissent, but it was the focus of questions.

I keep insisting that bump stocks do not meet the statutory requirements to be classified as machine guns. The ATF agreed with that idea for roughly 10 years, publishing numerous opinions to that end. Trump decided they needed to go and instead of working with the congress the executive just decide to change the law. It is funny how under the actual statute bump stocks weren't banned, but under the revised rule they are and they are banned specifically by category. If they fit the original statute the ATF could have just said "they are banned by statute". This is another executive overreach and abdication of responsibility by the congress.


BTW this has not one thing to do with technology changing. This is a APA issue. ATF broke the rules the government is supposed to work under.

But you will keep on insisting the executive should just rule by fiat and allow congress to sit and not do their jobs.

Listen to orals? I can see what a bump stock does. All the BS in the world won't change that. I keep insisting on just an ounce of common sense. You keep showing why we aren't allowed to use that.

Yes, as circumstances change the rules should always remain stagnant.

Let me be clear here. I don't think gun laws should be decided by executive order coming from a president. I do think the rules should adapt to changing circumstances.

The "rules" you keep insisting can be changed are LAWS. There is a statutory definition. It was created by congress and signed into law by the executive.

What the ATF did was try and create a rule that changes a law.

You are either ok with the rule and allowing the executive to change law or you are against the rule and the executive changing law. This is simple enough even for you.

I'm not for finding a legal loophole that makes it legal for a weapon to fire at the speed of a machine gun. I'm not sure how more clear I need to make that. Closing such a loophole as quickly as possible is something I agree with.

Loophole is just a "the law didn't do what I wanted the law to do".

Here is the issue:


If a bump stock is a machine gun then why would the ATF need to change the law to make a bump stock a machinegun? If a bump stock is a machinegun because of the statutory definition then would have said "a bump stock is a machinegun due to the statutory definition". Instead they changed the defintion of the word. Words have meanings, just because you saw a swan is a duck doesn't make it one.

You keep dancing around reality. A bump stock makes a weapon fire at about the speed of a machine gun. That's pretty simple and straightforward. You can dance around that with talking about legal definitions all you like. That doesn't change how fast a bump stock makes a weapon spit out rounds. A basic understanding of the results which a bump stock accomplishes is they very reason the law needed to be changed. I know, "But the legal definition of a machine gun!"

Poor you, you have no actual logic argument for allowing an agency to change law by fiat (which say you don't want but in reality you support). We have laws and a legal process. Changing laws by fiat is not part of that. Definitions matter. It is trendy these days to try and change the meaning of a word to manipulate things because actual change requires work.

Rate of fire is not part of the defintion. "spitting out rounds" is just emotional nonsense.

You want bump stocks banned call your congress critter. Have the law changed. The ATF violated the law with what they did. This is what the court found.

You support that a device which makes a gun rapid fire just like a machine does should be legal. I don't. Poor you. You have no real excuse for your support for such a rapid fire device other than "Yeah but according to law it doesn't fit the legal definition."

I'm aware that rate of fire isn't part of the definition. But since that's the entire issue it should be. You know, "Walks like a duck". The court finds overturning legal precedent fine too in some cases. You know, the cases that fit their agenda. Somehow you think that makes all of their rulings correct. I live in Tennessee. My congressman is just like all the other gun nuts that will fight tooth and nail to allow people to conceal and carry with zero firearms training or experience. To make a device that makes a semi automatic weapon spit out rounds like a machine gun remain legal and all sorts of there extremist gun laws. Common sense won't be found here either.

Statutory definitions are there to protect people. If the government can just change what anything means at any time why even have laws. You are so bent over bump stocks you would rather see a government just rule by fiat instead of holding them accountable for how they should run things, including having the congress change the rule. They had 90 years to change it as technology changed, they refused.

And just ot be clear, you again try to put words into my mouth. I actually don't care if bump stocks are classified as machine guns, I do care about executive overreach. Particularly overreach that makes people instantly committing felonies after being told "naw man, yer good".

And look at that, I live in MD where my congress critters want nothing more than to ensure no one has guns except the politically connected. I continue the fight against them, do you? And violent crime has continued downwards with constitutional carry, not upwards, but don't let that fact get in the way of you "knowing" anything. Not that this is ruling has a thing to do with all that. Where'd you put the goal posts again?

Can you tell me how upholding that a weapon that spits out ammunition at the rate of a machine gun "protects people"? What exactly does that protect people from? Bump stocks weren't around 90 years ago.

I fight against both too restrictive gun laws and too lax gun laws. All I ask is that a little common sense come from both directions. That's where my goal posts are.

I own a great number of firearms. I'm not an anti gun person. I'm certainly pro second amendment. At the same time I'm fully aware that our forefathers could not see into the future and know what advancements and capacity for weapon advancement would come in the future. Most people consider such ideas as being moderate and not extreme. Well, at least they used to.

I'm not bent about it. It's the type of thing I've come to expect. Allowing citizens to carry and possess weapons that deliver rounds like a machine gun just because people can't see that you are accomplishing circumventing the intent of a law by a loophole in the law nobody could have predicted was coming.

Do you ever actually read anything or do you just launch into your argument? Don't answer, it's obvious.

Laws and statutory definitions protect people. This keeps the government from just deciding, one day, that something is similar enough to something illegal and arresting you. Or just from simply declaring something is illegal and arresting you. Why bother to have laws at all? Just use that "common sense" and lock up people that do things you just don't like. Now, think about when the guys are in power you don't trust

This was not a second amendment issue. This was a APA issue but just like anything else, you need to move the goal posts to an argument you think you can win because otherwise your day is pointless.

BTW.. bump stocks aren't machine guns. Oh wait.. nope, still not machine guns. Who would have guessed that an agency just taking on themselves to redefine a statutory definition would be wrong.. oh wait. I knew.

Can you tell me how upholding that a weapon which spits out rounds of ammunition at the rate of a machine gun "protects people"? What exactly does that protect people from? Bump stocks weren't around 90 years ago.


Every gun law or the lack of is centered around the second amendment. The second amendment is the very foundation of what allows citizens to own and carry firearms.


It makes the rapidity at which they fire rounds as fast as a machine gun. Which is the very reason machine guns are illegal in the first place. According to you it seems that the spirit of the law which is why a law was written in the first place holds no meaning to you. All you wish to support is the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. No surprise there..............

The letter versus the spirit of the law: A lay perspective on culpability

Abstract

The letter of the law is its literal meaning. Here, the spirit of the law is its perceived intention. We tested the hypothesis that violating the spirit of the law accounts for culpability above and beyond breaking the mere letter. We find that one can incur culpability even when the letter of the law is not technically broken. We examine this effect across various legal contexts and discuss the implications for future research directions.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ability/910A080D1AF2F6817589C2C79CBBD1DD

You attempt to make this a cut and dry issue which clearly it is not. What you have chosen to do is concentrate 100% on the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law to base your case upon.

Goal post move. You continue to not read what is said and instead interject a different argument.

Oddly people wanted to ban "assault rifles" with things like vertical foregrips because they were SO deadly since they let you control the firearm too much. Now it's too "spity".

But bump stocks are not machine guns.



So you did not read the published opinion but it was a second amendment issue? Please find and cite all the references to the second amendment in this. No one argued bump stocks were protected arms.

The question asked:

Nothing implicated the second amendment. Not everything involving guns is a second amendment issue. For instance, had this been a second amendment challenge the bump stock ban in MD would have been stricken. Oddly we can own machine guns but not bump stocks. "common sense" strikes again

Bump stocks are still not machine guns.



The history of the NFA is more nuanced than "just because you can spray bullets". This is covered in the decision so you will never see that part.

And bump stocks are still not machine guns.



I can go find neat things on the Internet too, but at least you did more that use your cops out and emotional whinging.

rule of lenity


The ATF created ambiguity in law when they decided to use a rule to change statute. This cannot stand, especially since the penalty is severe for citizens.

And bump stocks are still not machine guns.

The spirit of the law verses the intent of the law isn't some "neat things on the Internet". It's something that has been used and debated my entire life and I'm sure much longer. But you saying that makes it much easier for you to ignore. Bump stocks make a weapon perform like a machine gun. Like I said, you are stuck on the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. I don't think outlawing machine guns is ambiguous. It's clearly to prevent citizens from having the ability to expend that much ammunition in such a quick fashion. If not there would be no reason at all to make them illegal in the first place. The exact same reason bump stocks were banned in the first place. To enforce the spirit of the law as it was intended.

Bump stocks cause a firearm to have the ability to expend ammunition the same way that a machine gun does. Which means a bump stock defies the spirit of the law in a very obvious way.

If machine guns aren't illegal because as you say, "just because you can spray bullets" then what would be the legitimate reason they are illegal?

So then they are not machine guns. A goose is like a duck. It is not a duck. Thank you for finally understanding that bump stocks are not a machine gun.

Everything you have tossed out was discussed, in orals and briefs. And yet, bump stocks are not machine guns. No matter if they are "like" machine guns they are not machine guns.

And bump stocks still are not machine guns. One cannot simply change the definition to suit one's end, especially if you are an executive agency and congress created a specific definition.

ATF: Bump stocks aren't machine guns.
Trump: But aren't they?
ATF: *changing definition to include bump stocks*
ATF: Bump stocks are machine guns cause the definition we just made says so.
SCOTUS: bump stocks aren't machine guns. Put that back and do it right.
Sotomayor *cries in office*

That was exhausting to read.

Gonna slam right through this convo to drop this:

If an adjustment to existing gun tech/gun tech laws makes it easier for a shooter to kill more human beings in less time, that adjustment is a development in the wrong direction.

If you disagree with this sentiment, you are probably someone who believes that more efficient killing of one's fellow man is a good thing.

I happen to want to live in a world where nuts don't kill 70+ people at a music festival.
I will debate any you from now until the day I die.

Hopefully, I won't die from acute high-velocity 'lead poisoning' while we hash out this debate.

It's not hard is it?

I don't think anyone here wants to see people killed at a music festival, or anywhere else. Madmen will find a way sadly.

Yeah you’re right. May as well make it easier for them to do it.

And the SCOTUS just promoted having a way to accomplish that by owning a device that is legal. There is no other reason to own a weapon that rapid fires in such a manner. If you think legitimizing such rapid fire weapons should be legal you may as well legalize the ownership of machine guns too. They both accomplish the same thing.

Frank you never answered this question.....

Using BUMPSTOCKS is how so many people were killed.

There should be no doubt that the use of bumpstocks assisted the killing and injuries. It really was horrific for anyone involved.

Using BUMPSTOCKS is how so many people were killed.

There should be no doubt that the use of bumpstocks assisted the killing and injuries. It really was horrific for anyone involved.[/quote]

No, a madman having time and shooting into a contained environment from elevation is how so many people were killed. The bump stock likely made no real difference. When you have someone bent on destruction and they have the kind of time Paddock had, a piece of plastic didn't really change much.