The US Supreme Court and its decisions

[KidTDragon]

It might be worse than that:

Why a Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Protecting Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone Means Less Than You Think

A unanimous SCOTUS decision being hailed by major media as a big win for abortion rights advocates is actually something else entirely. This report from an attorney and legal journalist explains why.

open.substack.com

 

[KidTDragon]

And we're back to business as usual:

Harlan Crow Provided Clarence Thomas at Least 3 Previously Undisclosed Private Jet Trips, Senate Probe Finds

The Supreme Court justice flew to Montana and other destinations on the billionaire GOP donor’s dime. Crow’s lawyer revealed these flights to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose ongoing investigation was sparked by ProPublica’s reporting.

www.propublica.org

 

[KidTDragon]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban

The question before the Supreme Court in the Garland v. Cargill case was whether a bump stock counts as a “machinegun” under federal law.

www.msnbc.com

SCOTUS: "What? We let you keep the abortion drug for a little longer, didn't we? Quitcher bitchin'!"

 

[Pale Rider]

FB friend:

In fantastic news for would-be mass murderers, SCORRUPTUS just ruled that the firearm bump stock ban is unconstitutional.

Now everyone can resume purchasing the harmless fashion accessory that Stephen Paddock used in 2017 to modify his weapon to shoot full-auto into a packed crowd of Las Vegas concertgoers, directly killing or injuring more than 400 people.

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era bump stock ban

The question before the Supreme Court in the Garland v. Cargill case was whether a bump stock counts as a “machinegun” under federal law.

www.msnbc.com

SCOTUS: "What? We let you keep the abortion drug for a little longer, didn't we? Quitcher bitchin'!"

It 100% was unconstitutional. A law could be made making it illegal, and likely pass constitutional muster but,
There is a legal definition of a machine gun. A bump stock does not meet that definition. The ATF can not just "say" it's a machine gun.

 

[wonko the sane?]

But there's also the argument of "if it walks like a duck". It functionally turned semi auto rifles into REALLY ******* good emulation of full auto. And regardless of the definition: it's dangerous, it's unnecessary, it's a threat. That ******* sicko in vegas used them and killed 60, wounded FOUR HUNDRED plus.

 

[MrBlud]

I would sympathize if the case were wrongly decided on the merits. You can’t ban rocket launchers or tanks under a machine gun statute. They’re horrific weapons of war but very clearly are not machine guns.

As Sotomayor said though “the National Firearm Act has since updated to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

Plus it also bans ““any part designed or intended” to enable automatic fire” which bump stocks absolutely do.

So she logically came to the conclusion “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

I would sympathize if the case were wrongly decided on the merits. You can’t ban rocket launchers or tanks under a machine gun statute. They’re horrific weapons of war but very clearly are not machine guns.

As Sotomayor said though “the National Firearm Act has since updated to expand the definition of a machine gun to include “any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically … more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

Plus it also bans ““any part designed or intended” to enable automatic fire” which bump stocks absolutely do.

So she logically came to the conclusion “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.”

Parts designed to do that are something like a lightning link, drop in auto sear, or back plate switch for a Glock, they generally change how the sear and trigger interact, allowing the firearm to continue firing as long as the trigger is depressed. A bump stock literally doesn't do that. It still requires the trigger to be actuated for each shot, it allows most people to do it faster than they normal would, as they are essentially pulling the trigger forward into there finger, rather than pressing there finger back into the trigger. This is defintialonaly not automatic fire or a machine gun, it is still using human energy, actuate the trigger for each pull.

 

[Dekafox]

To summarize, this is a "Technically correct is the best kind of correct" kind of decision, and that the judges are saying "Congress, do your damn jobs", correct?

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

To summarize, this is a "Technically correct is the best kind of correct" kind of decision, and that the judges are saying "Congress, do your damn jobs", correct?

Yes.

 

[wonko the sane?]

You'd think there would have been a way to get that message across WITHOUT allowing the device that creates machines guns to remain on the streets.

 

[MrBlud]

There’s no functional difference unless you get super technical with numerous visual aids about the inner workings of the gun and trigger mechanisms like the Republican Justices did. Which is *super weird* for a side (seemingly) so obsessed with textualism.

“A bump stock modified semi-automatic can fire 400 to 800 rounds per minute, experts said. By comparison, a fully automatic weapon, which is prohibited for civilian use, shoots 700-950 rounds per minute.”

Or to use a topical meme…

 

[CoffeeHorse]

It is their job to get technical about how these things work.

 

[MrBlud]

The National Firearms Act passed Congress in 1934. It outlawed “machine guns”

If you asked every single person who voted in favor of it; If a gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds a minute was a “machine gun” you’d get 100% of answers that yes of course it is. Because…yes of course it is. Regardless if a bump stock is doing it or you have pixies sprinkling magical faerie dust.

That’s textualism, which is all the rage until it leads them somewhere they don’t want to go then it’s “well Ackchyually”

 

[Ultra Magnus13]

The National Firearms Act passed Congress in 1934. It outlawed “machine guns”

If you asked every single person who voted in favor of it; If a gun capable of firing 400-800 rounds a minute was a “machine gun” you’d get 100% of answers that yes of course it is. Because…yes of course it is. Regardless if a bump stock is doing it or you have pixies sprinkling magical faerie dust.

That’s textualism, which is all the rage until it leads them somewhere they don’t want to go then it’s “well Ackchyually”

It also defined machine guns. It did not define them as "gun shoot fast" it defined them as guns that fire more than one shot per trigger action. So unless they voted without reading, then no, they wouldn't.

A skilled shooter can approach, or even outrun that many RPM. Without a mechanical aid.

By that definition all firearms capable of holding more than one round of ammunition would "machine guns" , including double barrel shotguns and single action revolvers.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

The main thing I'm getting out of this is that gun laws have not remotely kept pace with advances in murder technology. Which is absolutely no surprise.

 

[CoffeeHorse]

The technology really hasn't advanced that much. Congress absolutely could keep pace with it. They just don't.

 

[The Mighty Mollusk]

Didn't say they couldn't, just that they haven't.

 

[Rhinox]

It might be worse than that:

Why a Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Protecting Access to Abortion Medication Mifepristone Means Less Than You Think

A unanimous SCOTUS decision being hailed by major media as a big win for abortion rights advocates is actually something else entirely. This report from an attorney and legal journalist explains why.

open.substack.com

. . . .
Yes, it's kind of worse, but not because of SCOTUS. The entire point of that article is to point out that Trump put some truly horrible judges in courts in Texas and that the far right has realized all they have to do to get a win, regardless of merit, is to file there.
Legally, many of the judges that Trump appointed (at the behest of Leonard Leo, the architect of our current judicial issues) are completely out of control and off the rails. They're pushing jive in order to force the hand of SCOTUS and rule, hoping that the judges Trump put there will back their play.
While Alito and Thomas don't give a damn and will do whatever they want, the other, newer, players are still thinking about their legacy and actually applying some thought to decisions. That's actually a hopeful sign. Maybe, just maybe, they'll mellow as they grow into their roles. It has been known to happen.

As far as bump stocks, the decision was a straight shot across the bow of Congress. Do your ******* job. Frankly, this is a message we all need to be pushing.

 

[KidTDragon]

As far as bump stocks, the decision was a straight shot across the bow of Congress. Do your ******* job. Frankly, this is a message we all need to be pushing.

I feel like this is a message that we've been pushing for quite some time now, but it keeps getting ignored because we don't pay our congresspeople as much as the NRA does.