this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024

229 points (98.7% liked)

News

37777 readers

2857 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

229

US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks (www.bbc.com)

submitted 2 years ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

As I said in the other thread... This wasn't a merits decision as to "bumpstocks good" or "bumpstocks bad". The point was that machine guns have a statutory definition. Bumpstocks did not fit that definition. Trump tried to use executive order to essentially amend the law all by himself to revise the practical implementation of that definition. That's not how the US works. If the president wants bumpstocks banned, he must use political capital to lobby congress to pass a bill, then sign the bill if it makes it that far.

To everyone whining about the outcome of this particular case, imagine unilateral executive authority applied to every area of American life, and realize what you are wishing for.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Unfortunately, I think too many people actually want that.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

People have gotten in the habit of cheering on court rulings based on outcome, rather than any defining principles. I've been trying to encourage people to imagine the shoe is on the other foot and their political enemies are in charge, before contemplating expansion of federal powers.

[–] androogee@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

To be fair, the supreme court has also gotten in the habit of making decisions based on outcomes rather than principles

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In my opinion, a bumpstock does actually fit the definition of a machine gun, because the user-action to fire multiple shots in a row is one continuous action. Your finger becomes a part of the mechanical function of the gun and the trigger is pressed by pushing the handguard forward.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Problem is... by that definition, pants beltloops are also machineguns because you can bumpfire just as easily from those, and through exactly the same combined "mechanical function".

[–] Liz@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago

And if you attach a string to an M1 carbine just right it also becomes a machine gun. Constructive intent and the ability to enforce the law matter. We're never going to be able to ban strings or belt loops, and neither are produced or owned with the intent of building a machine gun, but a bump stock is clearly a purpose built device intended to turn a rifle into a machine gun and it's comparatively easy to enforce prohibition on such a specialized part.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Twaz the way it was always going to go. There is very specific wording for what is a machine gun, and a bump stock did not meet it.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago

Yup. From a legal standpoint this was the right decision. Too bad the SC isn't always so punctilious in its rulings.

[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You can chime in on technicalities with the next Las Vegas shooting.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, I don't endorse opinions like yours who advocate for a rogue Supreme Court that disregards the law and does what it wants. Change the law if you want to ban bump stocks.

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They literally ruled in one case this term with a fake situation that never happened ( 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) and then lied about the background facts in another (Kennedy v Bremerton), both in favor of "injured" Christians.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

OK, so you want more of the same just because this particular case aligns with your preferences? How about demanding a SC that narrowly does its job without acting like they it gets to decide what the law is?

[–] BajaTacos@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My comment is that this is already a rogue court when the case aligns with their beliefs.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago

And that's bad. We don't like that.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It's actually more of the same in this case as well, this position was just easier to defend.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 35 points 2 years ago (5 children)

These idiots have blood on their hands.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They won’t care until it’s their kids that get mowed down.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They didn't care when someone shot them at a congressional softball game.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

You realize many guns can be made full auto just by filling down or replacing a single part and the spring, right? It's been an issue for DECADES. This law was just reactionary legislation and didn't actually impact mass shootings. It being gone doesn't really change anything other than one less law to enforce.

Does America have a gun problem? Yes. Does it have an ass backwards bureaucracy problem? Also yes.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Since a bump stock alone is just a useless object, couldn’t they have just been banned them without ever even needing to reference weapons?

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Some states have. It's currently an open legal question as firearm parts/accessories generally get included under 2A protections as the right to keep and bear arms is infringed if, say, triggers are illegal. It's currently working it's way through the courts to determine the answer to your question and we wont have any definitive answers for years.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That makes sense. If you made all weapons legal but say, barrels illegal alone, its effectively a weapon ban

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

These we're banned under Trump. This is ridiculous.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Sorry, can't hear you. Because of the hearing damage from using a full auto rifle without a fucking silencer!

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That could happen with any gun loud enough, could even be a bolt action.

Suppressors are basic safety equipment, though, just ask France. Hell in some places in europe they're required to hunt to cut down on noise polution.

Since we have the NFA here which likes to pretend they're only tools for super murder assassins like Golgo 13 because they're so quiet they absorb sound like a black hole absorbs light (/s), we have active/passive ear protection instead.

I'd recommend the use of this basic safety equipment while doing anything loud, especially firing guns, unless unable due to it being a surprise self defense situation during which it becomes an acceptable risk.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

im glad the country is using time and resources for such an important issue as this

[–] ObamaBinLaden@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'll preface this by saying I'm not American so the point of this isn't a statement on seconds amendment. What I do not understand is, why would citizens be so obsessed by this format of firearms that it would make it all the way to the supreme court.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] bender223@lemmy.today 7 points 2 years ago

Another indication that the US gov doesn't care to even mitigate mass shootings or school shootings. The most important thing is that gun manufacturers make money.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 years ago

Shall not be infringed on my accessories. I remember that part too.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@ me when the next mass shooting with bump stocks happens. I give it a year max

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Finally! I can defend my home, again.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well those 80-100 feral hogs ain't gonna shoot themselves.

What? The number? Well bump stocks were illegal so we couldn't keep their numbers under control. We were totally unarmed.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Mass shooters everywhere rejoice

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Really the issue is who is allowed to use them anyway

load more comments