Yeah they probably should have been charged with treason not just obstruction

[u/Loud-Ad-2280]

[removed] — view removed post

[u/Dansk72]

Just like Justice Clarence Thomas' corrupt and utterly stupid logic in proclaiming that 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.

[u/ExternalPay6560 → u/Dansk72]

His wife should be charged with insurrection

[u/Steppy20 → u/Dansk72]

He's pretty obviously corrupt, but in that specific case he's right.

The legal definition of a machine gun is any gun which fires more than one round from a single use of the trigger. Even if that trigger is electronic instead of mechanical.

A bump stock doesn't change the trigger, so by definition it's not a machine gun.

Should the definition be updated? Possibly. But by letter of the law he's right.

[u/Zulraidur → u/Steppy20]

Someone inclined to disagree might argue that actually the function of the trigger is the users physical input to the gun not the internal mechanism that fires the bullet. In that case a bump stock does modify how the gun is triggered. Instead of one pull shooting one bullet, one long press of the trigger(in the right position with the correct amount of shoulder pressure) releases several bullets.

[u/Steppy20 → u/Zulraidur]

But even with your definition a bump stock still wouldn't be a machine gun.

It literally doesn't change the trigger mechanism. All it does is move the user's hand backwards and forwards for them using springs. The trigger is still reset because otherwise the rifle wouldn't fire again. Therefore it's not a single user input.

[u/Zulraidur → u/Steppy20]

The mechanism without a bump stock is you pull the trigger release and pull again. Afterwards the mechanism is you pull the trigger and keep shoulder tension and the gun in your hand continues shooting for as long as there is ammunition.

(Of course this requires that the triggering mechanism is not understood to be the technical machinery that ejects the bullet but the mechanism by which the shooter uses the gun)

[u/Steppy20 → u/Zulraidur]

The mechanism with a bump stock is that you pull the trigger, the rifle moves backwards, you release the trigger, and then the rifle moves forwards which allows you to pull the trigger again if you want.

By legal definition Clarence Thomas is right and is applying the law correctly.

Should the legal definition be updated? Possibly. But this isn't the way that should be done. The SCOTUS has way too much power as is without then being able to change laws like that without any proper input from anyone.

[u/Intelligent_Pilot360 → u/Dansk72]

It sounds like perfect logic based on the definition of a machine gun.

[u/QuickPassion94 → u/Dansk72]

That’s the legal definition. Theres nothing stupid about that logic.

[u/mechapoitier → u/Dansk72]

Right, as if it’s the armpit that’s the more dangerous part of the weapon.

[u/AlphaThree → u/Dansk72]

That is factually accurate though. A bump stock does not allow a weapon to fire more than one round per trigger pull. It allows you to pull the trigger faster. The definition of an automatic rifle is one which fires more than one round per trigger pull. Therefore a bump stock does not turn a weapon into an automatic rifle. It really isn't that hard. If you're going to call out Thomas's poor legal takes try the case which was 8-1, Thomas dissent. The bump stock case ain't it though.

[u/WealthSea8475 → u/AlphaThree]

We understand the wording, you're misunderstanding that the definition is inherently and logically fucked. It needs to be changed, bc wording is the only possible way they are not equivalents. Aside from the wording of the law as written, they are demonstrably functional equivalents from a firearm perspective, you twit.

Save yourself the mental gymnastics next time.

[u/AlphaThree → u/WealthSea8475]

Calling someone a "twit" inherently makes your argument false via the Ad Hominem fallacy.

Regardless, the job of the court is to use the wording of the law. Congress can change the definition if they don't like it. Separation of powers is a beautiful thing.

[u/WealthSea8475 → u/AlphaThree]

You're so damn smart. Thank you for blessing me with your intelligence.

Back to work, scrub!

[u/GOMADenthusiast → u/WealthSea8475]

It’s not his job to change the words though

[u/JoseSaldana6512 → u/Dansk72]

That's consistent with firearms law though. 1 pull of trigger 1 bullet is semi automatic. 1 pull of trigger more than 1 bullet is automatic and machine gun with heavier regulation.

[u/Dansk72 → u/JoseSaldana6512]

Except the shooter is not pulling the trigger multiple times, the bump stock is causing the rifle to move through a large enough backward and forward cycle, allowing the trigger to release and fire over and over without the person's trigger finger moving or pull more than once.

[u/Nofnvalue21 → u/Dansk72]

By definition, he is correct...

[u/AntelopeFlimsy4268 → u/Dansk72]

But it doesn't fire more than 1 round per trigger pull. Maybe watch a video of it in action and then watch a video of a fully automatic machine gun to see the difference. It still goes through the 8 cycles of fire for every shot, hence not a machine gun.

[u/Dansk72 → u/AntelopeFlimsy4268]

Yes, the trigger is being pulled once for every round, but not because the shooter is repeatedly pulling the trigger; because of the bump stock, the rifle if able to move backward and forward far enough to reset the trigger without the shooter ever having to pull the trigger more than once.

[u/Odinshand → u/Dansk72]

It is by definition not a machine gun, if you’ve never fired a full auto … you wouldn’t understand. Plus you can get the same result using a rubber band to force reset a trigger … the concept is upholding the constitution .. not randomly changing the definition of a blanketed law