• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Which is why the Scotus is in error on this decision because it ignored the purpose of the law to make a technical decision based on new technology not available to the original writers.
I'm sure the founding fathers were aware of advancement of arms and the like and put in legal mechanisms that can adapt.

Thing is , no politician wants to actually touch them over fears of compromising the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Hah! I do not believe you. Let's do the math. I got this figure from Wikipedia, but have seen the same rate claimed elsewhere:

" They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun.[1] "


Hmm, the math looks to be bit tricky. I have to divide the rounds per minute by 60 seconds per minute to convert. Deep breath. Okay here goes:

800/60 = 80/6 = 40/3 = 13.3333333333333 . . . Hey! No fair it does not stop.

But darn it, it looks as if you were right.
Tricky for me, I grew up with Reverse Polish Notation and have never been comfortable with AOS calculators especially like the built in that doesn't even have a 1/x function.

Yeah I are enginerd.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If the bullseye is a tightly packed crowd of humans accuracy relative to maximal capabilities is irrelevant.
Did you ever think about what type of target your machine would be useful for, or just fire it?
I already mentioned in close range and with tight groups of people it's effective.

Otherwise it only serves in the capacity as bring a suppressive weapon aside from any unlucky few hit by stray fire.

Even with a ban it's not going to stop people from doing it.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Interesting. That is the current definition. Of course definitions can change. What is interesting is I took the first gun in the photo from the link The Thompson machine gun. It has a range in fire rate as well. It varies from 1,200 to 800 rounds per minute. The article i looked up on it said that most were at the lower end of 800 rpm. That is at the high end of the bump stock. So one could say that it fires as quickly as some automatic rifles:

That is the current legal definition of 'automatic weapon' as per the ATF.
This definition is, as far as I can tell, the reason SCOTUS overturned the legislation.

They disagreed with everyone in this thread saying that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic weapon an automatic weapon.
Which, based upon the current legal definition of "automatic weapon" is not true.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I'm sure the founding fathers were aware of advancement of arms and the like and put in legal mechanisms that can adapt.

Thing is , no politician wants to actually touch them over fears of compromising the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Which is exactly why, not politicians, but Scotus is in error, they ignored advancement which has been an assumed understanding as you say since the founding.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Ok, if that is the legal party bureau definition, it has obviously become out of date and the Scotus decision is not in keeping with the intent of the law.
There is more to interpretation (Scotus"s job) of the law as I am sure you will agree.
I can agree.
The thing is, the legislation that was overturned was very badly written.
It made a flawed argument and got overturned for it.
Not the first flawed argument and I am sure it won't be the last.

Back to my origininal follow up, NOW WHAT? will Congress do anything about this obvious disparity between the spirit and the letter?
Trump signed it, Biden would, where do we go from here and how fast.

:)
Seems to me there are several different avenues to address it.
  • They can rewrite the the overturned one to comply with the current legal definitions.
  • They can attempt to get the legal definitions changed.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
That is the current legal definition of 'automatic weapon' as per the ATF.
This definition is, as far as I can tell, the reason SCOTUS overturned the legislation.

They disagreed with everyone in this thread saying that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic weapon an automatic weapon.
Which, based upon the current legal definition of "automatic weapon" is not true.
Ain't this fun, now we get to argue Scotus and it's purpose and intended or literal function.
Any idea of who we can use for an arbiter?
I nominate "We the People".
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I can agree.
The thing is, the legislation that was overturned was very badly written.
It made a flawed argument and got overturned for it.
Not the first flawed argument and I am sure it won't be the last.


Seems to me there are several different avenues to address it.
  • They can rewrite the the overturned one to comply with the current legal definitions.
  • They can attempt to get the legal definitions changed.
have you got a link to the relevant statute? I admit I haven't bothered to look.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I can agree.
The thing is, the legislation that was overturned was very badly written.
It made a flawed argument and got overturned for it.
Not the first flawed argument and I am sure it won't be the last.


Seems to me there are several different avenues to address it.
  • They can rewrite the the overturned one to comply with the current legal definitions.
  • They can attempt to get the legal definitions changed.
Small comfort to the families of the dead, past and future.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is the current legal definition of 'automatic weapon' as per the ATF.
This definition is, as far as I can tell, the reason SCOTUS overturned the legislation.

They disagreed with everyone in this thread saying that a bump stock makes a semi-automatic weapon an automatic weapon.
Which, based upon the current legal definition of "automatic weapon" is not true.
Perhaps then if the ATF redefined what an "automatic weapon" is then they could be made illegal again. If the USSC is going to play by silly rules so can the ATF.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Easy enough to fix,
by a single function of the trigger
becomes
by a single operation of the operator.


Now we go look for unintended consequences.
Should be good for a few more Scotus decisions at least.
:)
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Easy enough to fix,
by a single function of the trigger
becomes
by a single operation of the operator.


Now we go look for unintended consequences.
Should be good for a few more Scotus decisions at least.
:)
In all honestly, i think it would be faster and better in the long run to come up with another classification of firearms based upon rate of fire.
Call them "buzz guns" or something and declare all fire arms that fire more than say 20 rounds a minute are buzz guns, then regulation it as they see fit.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Or they can come up with a firearm type that is based upon rounds per minute.
Or that could be used as a differentiator between acceptable personal and special purpose weapons and on we go as soon as we admit that all firearms are not equal in use and purpose.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Or that could be used as a differentiator between acceptable personal and special purpose weapons and on we go as soon as we admit that all firearms are not equal in use and purpose.
Firearms are not all equal in use, function, and purpose.

I live out in the boonies and carry a Taurus Judge loaded with 410 rodent loads.
No way would I want to try to hit a snake with my Desert Eagle 50.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
In all honestly, i think it would be faster and better in the long run to come up with another classification of firearms based upon rate of fire.
Call them "buzz guns" or something and declare all fire arms that fire more than say 20 rounds a minute are buzz guns, then regulation it as they see fit.
Which I think was probably the intent of the law that was bypassed by this acceptance of bump stocks.
I grew up with a two trigger side by side Damascus twist and the philosophy that if you needed more, you should not have been using it in the first place.

My younger brother and my son do enjoy shooting AR-15s

Anyhow, we are not actually talking about a well armed militia in any of these discussions.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
In all honestly, i think it would be faster and better in the long run to come up with another classification of firearms based upon rate of fire.
Call them "buzz guns" or something and declare all fire arms that fire more than say 20 rounds a minute are buzz guns, then regulation it as they see fit.
That sounds fair. Bolt action or pump action make excellent alternatives without compromising the right to keep and bear arms. I would however argue in such a deal, that licensing and background checks be eliminated.
 
Top