National Scotus bump stock oral arguments tomorrow (Cargill)

[ilikegunspdx]

Mainly just a heads up that this case is making progress and could be ruled on soon. This is a huge case cuz it could largely determine the boundaries for what atf can do and can go a long ways to reigning them in when they over-reach beyond the written laws. If we win then FRTs may come back and the door may be open for tons of other legal actions against atf for things they have over-reached on. The possible end result is this could reduce ATFs power considerably.

View: https://youtu.be/Isowz5I8exM?si=oCaSfKEuuuU86d_m

Read More

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Guest Michael Cargill on His Bump Stock Case at the Supreme Court | The MC Hour #14

Guest Michael Cargill discusses his challenge to the bump stock ban at the Supreme Court next week, plus the new 'Russian disinformation' drops, suspects in ...

www.youtube.com

 

[waltermitty]

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Federal Gun Bump Stocks Ban

In [Garland v. Cargil] oral arguments, the Supreme Court considered whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has the authority to regulate bump stocks in the same way it regulates machine guns, which are illegal and banned under federal law. A bump stock is a device that enables...

www.c-span.org

live oral arguments

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I really hope that what this SCOTUS actually cares about overlaps what we care about on this issue

 

[CamoDeafie]

I really hope that what this SCOTUS actually cares about overlaps what we care about on this issue

3-4 vs 5-6 depending on the arguments

Edit. As in it could go either way

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Federal Gun Bump Stocks Ban

In [Garland v. Cargil] oral arguments, the Supreme Court considered whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has the authority to regulate bump stocks in the same way it regulates machine guns, which are illegal and banned under federal law. A bump stock is a device that enables...

www.c-span.org

live oral arguments

Sotomayer is full of bubblegum. That lawyer should put himself on 1/2 speed.

I'm glad speed talker lawyer clarified that it's ok to bump fire from belt or with finger only. I was wondering about that.

Interesting that atf brings up frt trigger.

Gosuch is right people don't function a trigger. People pull a trigger. Trigger is a function the thing does, not the persons action.

ATF lawyer said people in fifth circuit can be prosecuted despite fith circuit ruling that says they can't. Alito doesnt like that.

Forced reset trigger brought up again by atf lawyer. ATF lawyer says semi auto max is 180 rounds per minute, but actually 60. That's bs. 300 rpm is normal for fast firing an AR.

Almost all discussion is "what did congress mean by "function" in 1934?"

ATF lawyer said those atf notification letters that things aren't a machine gun don't really mean anything.

Cargill says bump stock needs continued human manipulation to work. Trigger can have a function not a person. A person can pull a trigger not function a trigger.

Justice Jackson doesn't know anything about guns. She said same as machine gun cuz machine gun needs backwards pressure and bump stock needs forward pressure.

Sotomayer, Lagan, and Jackson are constantly interrupting every single answer by Cargill lawyer. Alito and Thomas did not due this at all to gov lawyer. No question those 3 are 100% against this and trying to steamroll lawyer.

Cargill lawyer should use car as example imo. Choosing gear is like choosing safe, semi, auto. Gas pedal is like trigger make it go.

Kagan is flat out wrong saying that in 1934 congress knew about many different ways to simply turn weapon into full auto such as push a button to make auto fire. In 1934 how can they be thinking about that.

Now talking about printed cards are machine gun.

Comparing to rubber band.

Had to run so stoped taking notes at this point...

 

[lucusloc]

Sotomayer is full of bubblegum. That lawyer should put himself on 1/2 speed.

I'm glad speed talker lawyer clarified that it's ok to bump fire from belt or with finger only. I was wondering about that.

Interesting that atf brings up frt trigger.

Gosuch is right people don't function a trigger. People pull a trigger. Trigger is a function the thing does, not the persons action.

ATF lawyer said people in fifth circuit can be prosecuted despite fith circuit ruling that says they can't. Alito doesnt like that.

Forced reset trigger brought up again by atf lawyer. ATF lawyer says semi auto max is 180 rounds per minute, but actually 60. That's bs. 300 rpm is normal for fast firing an AR.

Almost all discussion is "what did congress mean by "function" in 1934?"

ATF lawyer said those atf notification letters that things aren't a machine gun don't really mean anything.

Cargill says bump stock needs continued human manipulation to work. Trigger can have a function not a person. A person can pull a trigger not function a trigger.

Justice Jackson doesn't know anything about guns. She said same as machine gun cuz machine gun needs backwards pressure and bump stock needs forward pressure.

Every time I hear anyone from the ATF talking about anything I want to get out the tar and feathers. Bad-faith arguments are bad faith. How can anyone listen to them and not come to the realization that they are were never interested in following the law but rather just wanted to expand the scope of their power however they could?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm glad speed talker lawyer clarified that it's ok to bump fire from belt or with finger only. I was wondering about that.

This kind of get to the root of the issue, technology has surpassed (or maybe worked around?) the restrictions designed to keep common folk in their place. Between that and inflation letting poor people afford the financial barrier the tax stamp was supposed to be must be driving them nuts!

 

[DB is Here]

Our "Betters" always know best...SMH

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Oral arguments are over. Based on the justice's questions I would guess we are going to lose this one. Every question was about technical details of the trigger and 1934 legislative intent. I didn't hear even one question regarding atf over-reach and it was only mentioned once by Cargill's council for a few seconds. I guess it's implied by asking about 1934 legislative intent but if it was forefront in poeples mind it woudl have come out in questions and it didn't. Just my gut feeling that they are thinking about this one device only and not the bigger Q of ATF over reach. I think they are trying to leave APA and chevron deference in the shadows and not bring it out and deal with it for this case.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Justice Sotomayor took the lead on this, right?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Based on the justice's questions

I have nothing but a gut feeling to back this up, but from what we have seen over the last few years I'm not convinced that is as reliable of a indicator as it once was. Again, JMHO but I think in the past we saw more questions designed to support an opinion and these days we are seeing more questions designed to challenge an opinion.
So it used to be: As the justice I believe that this is the right opinion and replies from counsel support that position
And now it's: As the justice I believe that this is the right opinion and replies from counsel do not show a strong argument against that position

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I have nothing but a gut feeling to back this up, but from what we have seen over the last few years I'm not convinced that is as reliable of a indicator as it once was. Again, JMHO but I think in the past we saw more questions designed to support an opinion and these days we are seeing more questions designed to challenge an opinion.
So it used to be: As the justice I believe that this is the right opinion and replies from counsel support that position
And now it's: As the justice I believe that this is the right opinion and replies from counsel do not show a strong argument against that position

I haven't followed it at all so you are probably right on that. My gut feeling is the justices were like, "we all agree we don't like these things. And we are going to keep it narrow and not get into is it protected under 2A (this was not argued by the plaintiff), APA (ie atf over reach), but limit it to trying to interpret what congress was thinking in 1934 and how these things work".

My worry though is if Soto writes the majority opinion she is going to purposely put language in there that gives the anti's a crack to widen in the future. Such as function is a human act vs mechanical function, "dangerous and unusual" broader definition, legislative intent in the past was not what was specifically written but instead a broader intent (this would be extremely dangerous).

I hope if they rule against Cargill (which I think they will) is that they keep everything very narrow. We'll see and it's all just guesswork on my part. Who knows.

 

[Provincial]

I didn't watch the hearing, so I'm throwing this out in the blind.

My argument would be that the gun is equipped with an interruptor that requires the trigger to be reset before the gun can fire again. The device in question does not interfere with that mechanism, but enables the operator to cycle the trigger rapidly. Hence, the device does not meet the standard called out in the original legislation to be a "machine gun," because the interruptor functions normally and prevents firing more than one round for each pull of the trigger.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Read through the uncorrected captions transcript.

Certainly does seem to revolve around "what exactly a single ""function"" of a trigger means, and how do a bumpstock modify or change that?" Seemed to repeatedly say that bumpstocks does nothing to modify the trigger at all, only increased ROF and seems theyre gunning to include the human factor and action into "a function"

I didn't watch the hearing, so I'm throwing this out in the blind.

My argument would be that the gun is equipped with an interruptor that requires the trigger to be reset before the gun can fire again. The device in question does not interfere with that mechanism, but enables the operator to cycle the trigger rapidly. Hence, the device does not meet the standard called out in the original legislation to be a "machine gun," because the interruptor functions normally and prevents firing more than one round for each pull of the trigger.

Yeah, again, several times in the transcript, there's assertions that the bumpstock does not modify the trigger whatsoever (like the Lightning link, autosear, Glock switch all does) and that it depends on the user to raise rate of fire.. and again several times, one of the Justices keep reminding that if the 1934 legislation doesn't account for the human factor, then its up to Congress to decide on and that right now the case is about whether or noth the bumpstock really meets the definition of the 1934 law and some of the othrr Justices (Kagan Jackson and Sotomayor) seem to be intent on broadening the scope of "a single function" to include the human factor (a human with fast finger? A device that allows the human to manipulate trigger faster? Etc)

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Soto, Jackson, and Kagen were in full attack mode and anti gun from the get go. questions to gov. Were spoon fed saying "you're right because A and B correct?" They also constantly interrupted the plaintiff over and over.

The other justices were asking more objective things actually trying to get to the truth such as "what do you think about x" for both plaintiffs and gov. As if they were trying to get to the truth or a correct interpretation, not push an agenda on one side or another.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Again, it could legitimately go either way, if the 3 anti Justices manage to get +2 to decide that yes ATF can make rules to broaden "legislative intent"

 

[SonicBlue03]

Kagan referring to herself as a textualist while setting that aside for her own sense of "common sense" is laughable, but also not unexpected.

Unpopular take here: I think bump stocks are gimmicky bits like the old Hellfire trigger systems to let Poors have MGs. I'm completely unsurprised that they were eventually targeted as such.

My real concern is how they rule. Now broad or narrow in scope the ruling is that comes out. I'm far more concerned about ATF being given more unilateral decision-making as to the state of weapons and weapon components as it pertains to the NFA. The courts could *really* screw us if they aren't super tight on their ruling.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It would take some mighty cognitive dissident to be able to say one particular agency is ok to make administrative rulings and and other one isn't

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The courts could *really* screw us if they aren't super tight on their ruling.

Hate to be a broken record on this, but I'm not sure if the court cares all that much about "us", I think rulings that favor us are just happenstance because they overlap whatever it is they are actually doing