JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Kagan referring to herself as a textualist while setting that aside for her own sense of "common sense" is laughable, but also not unexpected.
Indeed :s0140:

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.
Eh. Pistol braces. FRS. Things like that.

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.
Yup. I do think that there is another case relating to the guns/ammo tax in CA that's making its way through Fed Courts that may end in the elimination of the NFA tax requirements (might be a good start to removing NFA but..)

However APA/admin rulings can really screw us in the long run if they decide in favor of ATF (good bye AR15s, hello AR15s NFA category)

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
But wouldn't surprise someone particularly if its about scary firearms and their accessories, versus the bureaucracy of fed agencies and fishermen/outdoors people and businesses :rolleyes:

Edit. SCOTUS is made up of humans with largely two sides of views and a spectrum.
 
Last Edited:
Side note about what atf lawyer said about bump firing. I was always wondering can they bust you for using belt loop etc. he said they can't. So seems like best fast firing trigger would be one tuned for the easiest bump fire. That trigger plus practice would be safe legally and also produce bursts or mag dumps fairly consistently I would guess (at least for range use). Safe legally until atf changes their mind again though I guess. But they are on record now in front of scotus saying bump firing without a device on the gun is legal. Heading to the woods for massive bump firing in 3... 2... 1... :s0114:
 
Last Edited:
I and many others probably, want an accurate and clear transcript with who's saying what noted... ;) and I would wager that many people will want the transcript to read exactly what was said, not "sanitized and edited to fit the views of the various partisan pundits" :rolleyes:
I haven't heard the mo3 but I mostly remember who said what. The first ones were gosuch and kavanaw was very brief. The ones who keep interrupting are Soto and Jackson. Kangas or whatever her name is is more slow and controlled speaking. Soto sounds like her but more emotional. Alito said one a couple lines, Thomas only one question really. Coney Barret only asked 2 ring clarification questions. Roberts asked only 1 question as I recall and it was minor. It was the Soto, Jackson, and other lady show pretty much.
 
sorry, I thought the CSPAN live was the actual articulation and showed the speaker ID.
It did. Maybe it can be watched on cspan archive or something?

Edit whole thing is here with speakers id

 
Last Edited:
Clicky to embiggen.
Screenshot_20240228_123529_Chrome.jpg

Direct from the C-Span site and you'll have to scroll down and click."show full text".. but right there "text was compiled from uncorrected closed captions".

Is it really too much to ask for better accurate closed captioning?????

Edit. When I watch videos like on C-Span channel in the past, the captions weren't accurate enough and often went by too fast like that speed talking lawyer referenced in a previous comment.. which is why I tend to prefer reading the transcript if provided. Mark Smith's Four Box Diner does provide transcripts, though autogenerated captions or inaccurate audio settings makes things dicey sometimes, so a live captioner with the highest accuracy. or in my case, accurate ASL interpreters would improve things but they almost never show the interpreters in a PIP format :rolleyes:
 
Last Edited:
Check out the 24:55 mark in the video. Alito asks if people in 5th circuit can be prosecuted even though 5th circuit said bump stocks are legal. ATF says yes they can prosecute. Scary.

3:55, 6:29 and 18:22 mark is where speed talker says bump firing without device is legal. Woohoo! They also say using a rubber band to help you bump fire is legal (6:29 mark).

So you could have a bump fire tuned trigger plus a rubber band and that woudl be legal as I understand it.
 
Last Edited:
There was one make justice who said "I agree with you I think these should be illegal". Does anybody remember who that was? I'm thinking roberts but may have been Kavanaugh.
 
Don't own a bump stock. Have zero interesting in owning one. But it is fun to watch the arguments.
It's not really about bumpstocks. It's about how much authority atf has to make up their own laws. It also specifically affects other fast firing trigger related stuff. Well see how broad or narrow the ruling is, that will determine a lot.

As justice gosuch said (I think), atf formerly said they were legal, now they are saying they aren't and 250,000-500,000 people could suddenly be felons and face jail up to 5 years if caught with them.

The next time atf does this it might be for something you do care about, like magazines, or?
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top