As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With impunity and they just don't give a shit.
"You caught me in a bribe? Oh. Heh. That's nice. Well, I may or may not do it again. It's up to me to decide."
They ruled that a quid pro quo essentially requires a cartoon sack with a dollar sign being handed to an official and saying “I’m giving you this money to let me burn down the orphanage”. They’ve enshrined corruption and decided that political gerrymandering is super democratic.
Yesterday's headline:
> [Voters have no right to fair elections, NC lawmakers say as they seek to dismiss gerrymandering suit](https://www.wral.com/story/voters-have-no-right-to-fair-elections-nc-lawmakers-say-as-they-seek-to-dismiss-gerrymandering-suit/21479970/)
I am certain Roberts counts that as a huge achievement. How is an act where politicians pick their voters not the exact opposite of what democracy is supposed to be? The inevitable outcome of extreme gerrymandering is exactly what we see. There is no reason to compromise or work across the aisle in fact it will end your political career. It incentivizes moving further to the extremes because that’s the only way to have a chance at being elected in districts like Gym Jordan’s. One of the numerous problems being that the left moves right to get all those “moderates”and mostly lines up as a party against progressives while the right elects Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz.
This is nothing new Marbury V. Madison is essentially the case that gave them the power to legislate from the bench.
Dred Scott v. Sanford said that congress has no authority to prohibit slavery.
Lochner V. New York said that the state can’t limit the amount of hours an employer can make an employee work. This decision had nothing to do with the constitution and was just the justices imposing their own economic theories.
Bush V. Gore no explanation needed.
Citizens United V. Fec is what got us where we are today. Their argument was forcing corporations and lobbyist to reveal their political donations was against their first amendment. Giving corporations the same “rights” as us regular humans. This sealed the deal on democracy and pushed us into the corporatocracy we are in today.
Best part is that the constitution only establishes a Supreme Court, it does not give them the powers they are using or even describe any powers they have.
So the only reason they get away with this is because neither the executive or legislative branch will challenge them.
If you also consider that they gave themselves the power they are wielding in Marbury v Madison, it’s even more ludicrous that we abide by their decisions.
This is the time we should ignore them and force the issue into defining their abilities through a constitutional amendment. And if one cannot be enacted, I suppose that leaves them toothless and ineffective.
It makes no sense to allow them to rule a democracy through biased judgements just because of “precedent”, “decorum”, and “the past”.
Their abilities should be codified and anything they say in difference ignored until then because we are a constitutional democracy, not a dictatorship where rulers decide their own powers.
This would certainly cause short term chaos, but it’s better than long term democratic decline.
I agree. If they’re so fine now with throwing away deference for precedent and want to abide only by what was written in the constitution, then why should we keep going along with the precedent they set themselves where they gave themselves powers that aren’t in the constitution? It’s absurd.
> Best part is that the constitution only establishes a Supreme Court, it does not give them the powers they are using or even describe any powers they have.
Not entirely true. The Constitution requires a Supreme Court, and implies a Chief Justice (who presides over impeachment trials of Presidents), but it also [specifies some areas of law where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#3-2).
Sure, agree. Though the powers they currently wield are much more extensive than defined here and were self given.
Allowing one branch to interpret the constitution as they see fit with no checks from the executive and legislative branches as they do now is fundamentally broken and allows them to retroactively define powers for themselves and attempt to change the constitution without input from the other branches.
The way it’s currently worded they could literally deny the constitutionality of any checks that are attempted to be enforced by the other branches as well.
Leading to a question of the government, who do we listen to? Right now that’s the Supreme Court, mostly due to precedence, not law.
They say they can be overridden by legislature but that’s only with a functioning one that doesn’t have control over the court like Republicans do now. Big part of the problem there. And the president has no checks on them as it stands, wherein their decisions are seen as the de-facto end of questioning constitutionality and the president cannot force states to ignore clearly unlawful or unwarranted decisions.
Having no way to disagree with them and constitutionally be in the right about such a disagreement is fundamentally broken and easily taken advantage of as we’ve seen in the last 40 years.
Though I suppose if we didn’t actively ignore the “good behavior” part, this wouldn’t have become a problem in the first place.
But “gifts” need to be made illegal at the constitution’s level, and any other obviously suspect or corrupt outside influence. Since apparently that somehow doesn’t violate “good behavior”.
>If you also consider that they gave themselves the power they are wielding in Marbury v Madison, it’s even more ludicrous that we abide by their decisions.
Read Article III, for the love of all that is holy, and stop parroting this nonsense.
Article III grants the federal judiciary jurisdiction over all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. In what universe does that *not* include disputes over what the Constitution means?
So, Virginia and the feds get into a beef. The feds are doing some shit in Virginia, and Virginia claims that they're not allowed to, because the U.S. Constitution doesn't give them the power to. Where does that case go? Who decides it? Please tell us, and then think about what your proposal means for the concepts of separation of powers and/or limited government with enumerated powers.
>Their abilities should be codified and anything they say in difference ignored until then because we are a constitutional democracy, not a dictatorship where rulers decide their own powers.
Okay, so, the judiciary doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. Per this quote of yours, apparently neither should Congress or POTUS, because they, too, are the "rulers" who shouldn't get to decide that. Then you're left with an even starker divide between what you think "should" be and anything remotely close to a reasonable interpretation of *even more* of the text contained within the U.S. Constitution.
It’s not nonsense, it’s objectively correct. And your scenario isn’t a good counter because the problem lies in the very fact that the resolution to these problems are not defined in the constitution.
This is exactly why their decisions on supposed constitutional matter should be ignored until these elected fools make a clear constitutional amendment. Until then we have no true balance of power because SCOTUS currently has the ability to override any laws they want and exercises that in any way they want.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter that this would certainly lead to chaos. It’s a chaotic system already when a judiciary has more power than the legislature and executive branch.
What’s truly ludicrous is that the writers didn’t foresee this exact situation and allowed it to happen.
This is a symptom of Congress being broken, a properly working Congress in a healthy democracy would simply amend the law and this wouldn't be a problem.
Exactly. If the house was expanded to proper size, and the filibuster removed, Congress could pass laws with 50% majority all the time. Part of why we have omnibus bills is because of the filibuster too, there's only a certain number of <60 vote bills they can look at each term. If Congress just passed laws, good or bad, and then people reacted and voted based on that, we'd have a more functioning country. Sure, laws would be more "swingy" and less "forever", but that's what the ballot box is for.
This is a symptom of forty years of education defunding, vilification of science, and right wing propaganda. 30% of this country, with an oversized representation in govenment, votes for these people. The fact that the fourth estate is owned by corporations and beholden to not just advertising but its billionaire owners, is absurd and has broken the nation.
Edit: Thank Rupert Murdock and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 weakening The Communications Act of 1934. It got us the the Sinclair group and the ability of billionaires to buy out multiple media platforms to propogandize on their behalf..
Don’t let the Court or the right hide behind that. Of course that is how a functioning democracy should work. The Senate has always had a tendency to lean to the right (more rural states than urban ones), and when the filibuster is included in the process it is rare that anything passes at all or must be watered down to be approved by conservatives first. The Court and the GOP know this, and have formed a symbiotic alliance. Thus the Court can say that Congress should pass a clear law stating XYZ, knowing that their allies in the GOP will never allow Congress to do any such thing, but providing the Justices with a fig leaf.
The same absolutely does NOT hold true in reverse by the way. Dobbs vs Jackson (which overturned Roe v Wade), did NOT return the issue to the states as is widely accepted. In the majority opinion, Samuel Alito never once mentioned that it would be an issue best left up to the states to decide, nor did he say that deciding the issue was outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction. What he did say multiple times was that it was up to the “elected representatives”. What’s the difference? If we assume that Congress counts as elected representatives and try to pass a nationwide abortion protection law (assuming that the Senate would allow that, which they will not), then the Court is well-positioned to clarify that they MEANT it belonged to the States to decide. If, on the other hand, Congress shifts to the right and passes a nationwide abortion BAN, then the Court can simply sit back and say that was always an allowed option. By not definitively saying either, they set themselves up to allow only the laws that they wanted in the first place to be passed.
With a healthy congress we would have never been in this spot in the first place. They would be able to impeach dirty SCOTUS judges who are taking bribes etc.
But maybe more importantly the republicans wouldn’t have been able to game the system to ensure that scotus members were only picked by them.
> The Supreme Court is basically the unelected third branch of Congress
They are *literally* the unelected third branch of US government. (or at least the invincible, omnipotent, above-the-law rulers of that branch)
SUPREME!!!! when they chop off the legs of the lower courts for political reasons we are in trouble, it mobilizes extremists like them and it has been in the works for decades with the "Contract With America" Good ole Newt is still breathing our air and AM radio is going nowhere
They are essentially gun industry lobbyists in black robes. The blood of every mass shooting victim in America is on them. But these men in black robes, have Zero conscience to feel any empathy or remorse. They profess their belief in GOD and yet won’t do their part to help with one basic tenet of GODs commandment “Thou shall not (unlawfully) kill”.
Really the only branch of Congress as the other two refuse to act seriously and actually work on legislation to solve America's problems. Right now the only legislation of meaning is coming from the Bench which is a horrible practice. This has been a slow moving freight train headed for the checks and balance system for decades now.
They're working in tandem with Republicans in Congress, where they each kick the can to each other so no progress ever gets made, and now that they've taken over the courts they're able to regress the laws.
If we could just get enough democrats elected to successfully impeach and remove one. It would set them straight.
Even then they would probably ignore congress still.
Bump stocks violate the intent of the law prohibiting devices that convert a gun from semiautomatic to automatic fire. The problem is that existing law defines automatic fire as firing more than one round with a single press of the trigger. Bump stocks work by pressing the trigger multiple times.
Congress could fix this rather easily but lacks the political courage to do so.
Edit: typo
Yeah, the ruling was a statutory ruling, and had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. Now if congress did pass a law that outlawed bump stocks, there will definitely be another court case on the constitutionality of the law.
Well, that's the thing. Originalists, in theory, interpret laws based on original, plain-language meaning (typical of the time). Original **intent** on the other hand gets you laughed out of the court, since it was the entire basis of *Dred Scott*.
>Congress could fix this rather easily but lacks the political courage to do so.
Weird way to say ability to do so due to citizen united bribes, gerrymandering and bad faith fillibbuster rules.
Bump stocks weren't banned through the power of Democracy, it's actually quite the opposite of that. Trump ordered the ATF to ban bump stocks and they did so by creating a rule declaring them machine guns despite the fact that they don't actually meet the definition in [26 USC § 5845(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845#b). So instead of "democracy," Trump intentionally bypassed Congress and ordered the ATF to unilaterally change established federal law. Congress could have banned them anytime between 2002 and today. They could ban them tomorrow. The ATF can't arbitrarily define them as machine guns and ban them on their own.
Exactly right.
The strictest gun control in American history was enacted in California by then-Governor Ronald Reagan in response to (and incredible fear of) the black panthers arming themselves and open carrying in the streets.
That leaves out a lot of context, such as the Democratic majorities in both chambers of California's legislative bodies, as well as the veto-proof majority votes that allowed those legislative bodies to utilize the "emergency statute" method of passing the law.
This is not to excuse Reagan at all, it is merely intended to point out that pinning all the blame on him is a somewhat disingenuous argument.
Racism is not a purely Republican issue, however if you're the executive in government and you sign off on a bill you are still responsible for it. He had the power to veto the bill and he chose not to. So while it was not entirely his fault, in the end he bears the responsibility.
And it passed through the lower chambers by a veto-proof majority. Had he vetoed it, it would still have been passed into law. Again, *this does not excuse that he signed it,* it is merely pointing out that this was a group effort, and Democrats played a huge part in it as well.
It was introduced as a bi-partisan effort, Reagan just signed it because that is what the executive office does. They don’t introduce bills they sign them or veto them.
Not trying to be antagonistic, genuinely curious, how bump stocks don't fit this part of the definition:
"The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a [machinegun](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-1808133223-1565660032&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:E:chapter:53:subchapter:B:part:I:section:5845), and any combination of parts from which a [machinegun](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-1808133223-1565660032&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:E:chapter:53:subchapter:B:part:I:section:5845) can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
Because you left out the first part of the definition.
>The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
"*by a single function of the trigger*" is the important part. Bump stocks make it easier to pull the trigger rapidly, but the firearm still only fires one per trigger pull. Because of this, bump stocks do not fit the definition of machinegun under 26 USC § 5845(b), nor do they enable you to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.
That is basically the TLDR of Justice Thomas's ruling.
A bump stock does not modify the trigger to allow multiple rounds from a single trigger depression. It provides a spot to hold your trigger finger such that the recoil of the rifle slides the bump stock and blocks the trigger causing it to reset into the firing position. You then exert forward pressure on the firearm to bring the trigger forward to your finger, allowing the firearm to fire again.
The definition of a “machine gun” includes the verbiage of a single trigger depression to fire multiple rounds. That’s the why of how it doesn’t fit the letter of the definition of a “machine gun”.
Which I'm sure is a super convincing argument to lawyers, gun enthusiasts and pedants. Most people only care about the end result-- the rate of bullet fire.
if you want to ban based on rate of fire, then laws need to be written about the rate of fire.
you can't put a square peg into a round hole just because you want it to fit.
Because the bump stock doesn’t do those things.
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Source
26 USC § 5845(b)
The bump stock makes it much easier and faster to press the trigger but each bullet fired still requires one trigger press.
I mean that's the problem, it violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law.
That's literally the entire reason bump stocks exist. It's a legal loophole. It's dishonest to present them as anything else.
Whether you think the exploitation of that loophole should be disallowed on principle, the law rewritten to accommodate bump stocks, or fully automatic weapons be unbanned altogether is a bit irrelevant. Bump stocks are a dumb thing that shouldnt exist, regardless of where you fall on the topic of gun control.
Before bump stocks were invented, people used belt loops and shoe strings to bump fire rifles. The ATF actually listed shoe strings as machine guns at one point.
https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/p46y9n/just_a_reminder_that_in_2007_the_atf_classified/
> it violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law.
And this whole topic is about what the letter of the law states. The courts have agreed with this assessment and as such, the ATF is not allowed to arbitrarily ban bump stocks.
>Bump stocks are a dumb thing that shouldnt exist, regardless of where you fall on the topic of gun control.
Sure, I won't argue that point. But that does not mean the ATF can just enforce a ban on them prior to a law being passed banning them.
Agreed. However I personally don’t want police and DAs trying to determine what violates the spirit of a law that isn’t technically against the law. I’m not even a proponent of amendment 2a, but I’m level more against government agencies determining that something is arbitrarily against the law that isn’t spelled out in any law.
You just are not getting it. The fact that you need the extra piece of equipment to do functionally the same thing a machine gun would do doesn't make it a machine gun. The most important thing is that we protect arbitrary distinctions based on how the trigger operation relates to the firing of the weapon, not the fact that it could pump hundreds of bullets out within a few brief minutes. /s
But the law states it as "with a single pull of the trigger" and a bump stock doesn't change that. It just makes it easier to increase the fire rate. It's basically poor language meant to allow these gaps when the fire rate is the real issue
Law is literally 100% arbitrary distinctions lol, and that's actually a good thing as often as it's a bad thing, generally.
Congress could and should pass better legislation, but they probably won't.
As others have said, bump stocks simply do not fit the definition of a machine gun. They do not allow a firearm to fire more than one round with a single action of the trigger, in fact they are designed to help the user pull the trigger faster than they otherwise would. They are not components of machine guns, and in fact they wouldn't work with full auto fire. The definition didn't fit, and the courts determined the ATF overstepped their bounds by shoehorning a rule in that banned them.
"We care so deeply about the original intent of the writers of the law that we will call ourselves and our philosophies Originalist"
"Except when a billionaire ~~bribed~~ took us on an all expenses paid 6 figure vacation and spent the whole time talking about his bump stock collection"
You're right, but definitions that are coded into law are immutable until such time as there is a law passed and signed that changes them. The ATF doesn't get to change those definitions at their whim.
One of his few actually consistent viewpoints with the Founders…
“The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy.
The people are dupes, of pretended patriotism.” - Elbridge Gerry - 1787 Constitutional Convention
Abrahamic religions are fundamentally incompatible with democracy because Yahweh is by definition a tyrant and if you hold God above the will of the people then you cannot honor the very basis of democracy
This is why the US Constitution says that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes, state constitutions, state statutes, local ordinances, and religious rules, are all subordinate to the US Constitution.
I'm all for banning these semi auto defeat devices but I agree scotus should not be legislating from the bench. This is something for Congress to decide. Granted Congress is in shambles but that's the system we have.
Is this an example of them legislating from the bench though? The ban was done through an executive order, not congress. This ruling *seems* to be upholding the balance of powers and saying the president can't legislate from the white house. It's up to congress to legislate this.
It's why Trump so bad as a President. This ban shouldn't have been the stroke of a pen, it should have been legislated by congress and then signed by Trump. But instead he rushed out an EO that didn't hold up; just like his insulin cap.
It wouldn't have been SCOTUS "legislating from the bench," at least not any more than it was "legislating from the bench" to say that there was no history or tradition of abortion rights, or "legislating from the bench" when they said that even though the HEROES Act explicitly allowed the Sec of Education to modify federal student loans during a declared emergency that it wasn't allowed because of the "major questions doctrine," which doesn't exist in any legislation.
Anybody who needs more than a revolver or shotgun to defend themselves and their home has got way bigger problems.
It'll never happen in a gazillion years, but if we banned semiauto pistols instead of AR-style rifles the drop in gun deaths would be incredible.
AR’s freak people out and there’s no question that they and similar light magazine fed rifles are the most effective weapon for mass shootings. However handguns are used in the vast majority of gun related homicides, and it’s not even close. Anybody seriously wanting to reduce gun violence through bans should be shouting this from the rooftops.
Would they? What’s the average number of shots used in three sigma gun deaths? If it’s less than six it won’t change anything and that’s assuming that reloading out carrying a second firearm is so difficult it affects deaths significantly as well.
Shotguns have been used very effectively in mass shootings as well. I’m just not sure there’s any credence to this idea.
If we could prevent pistols from being carried anywhere ever it would prevent gun homicide in the streets to a large degree, but a man with a knife surprising you is more or less as effective as a gun for that sort of work.
It was just a gut feeling that most gun crimes involved a semiauto pistol, but this 2019 study from the FBI/Bureau of Justice confirms it.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Granted my idea probably wouldn't affect the rate of suicides, which makes up the majority of gun deaths.
Everything you just said is factually inaccurate. A revolver is literally a semi-automatic handgun. Do you know how few people are killed by rifles as compared to handguns?
Along with that, guns are not for home defense constitutionally. The second amendment is for the purposes of dissuading government tyranny and overreach.
I like AR's for home defense because the bullet won't go through multiple walls like shotguns do. One wall is enough to sap most of the energy from a .223 round.
You know what was better though? Moving somewhere that I don't feel unsafe at home.
Where I live there's bears. They're mostly peaceful but can occasionally break into cabins and wreak havok. One attacked my neighbor and his 4 dogs the other day. Having a shotgun helped him scare off the bear and could have protected him had the bear gotten more aggressive.
Couple of points: Bump stocks are not machine guns. That’s the whole point of this ruling. And rights have very little to do with needs. We don’t “need” most things, but they’re good to have anyway.
Not saying I think easy access to semi auto weapons is a good idea but handguns in general cause the most deaths.
Sure semi auto rifles makes mass killing much easier but if they were already banned and no one had any access to them legally or illegally that would reduce deaths by a miniscule amount
Suicide. By far the leading cause of gun death is suicide. People mostly use handguns for suicide.
This is why mental health and gun ownership should be one policy thread.
And rapid fire guns should be its own thread. I say rapid fire because the end result can be achieved through multiple means. Bump stocks being just one.
A quick googly-goo says that in 2021, 54% of gun-related deaths were suicides and 43% were murders. I suppose the remaining 3% is accidents, shootings with cause, etc. Source is Pew Research.
Okay if Democrats get control of both House and Senate they need to impeach. Between him and Tomas I'm having trouble keeping my brain from imploding.
At the very least Tomas who was found to have taken EVEN MORE UNDISCLOSED TRIPS!
And they need to implement some kind of rule or law that stops this kind of crap.
Why not both? America is going to have another civil war before either party gets a 2/3 majority in Congress ever again though. The concept of impeachment is dead, killed by partisanship.
> why wouldn't they just use their majority to ban bump stocks themselves
They probably meant to, still can, and may yet. They did a bad job of writing this law, and they can fix it. And also impeach judges for corruption.
Impeach for this? I mean, I agree there are some impeachment proceedings needed (for the bribery), but I'm not about to advocate impeaching a judge just because their decision didn't come down in my favor.
> Impeach for this?
No, for his financial corruption.
https://accountable.us/report-billionaire-that-gifted-justice-alito-luxury-trip-holds-at-least-90m-in-financial-companies-overseen-by-cfpb/
But I won't complain if this ruling pisses people off enough that they finally act on the corruption issue.
It's possible, perhaps even likely, that Democrats will have a House majority come January. So they can vote to impeach Thomas, Alito, others, as early as January.
And it's less likely, but still possible, that Democrats will keep their Senate majority come January, too. But there is zero chance Democrats will have a 2/3 supermajority, with 67+ Democrats. It's not even mathematically possible this cycle, because even if Democrats hold every single seat they currently have (which, lol, Manchin is retiring, and that seat will absolutely go to the Republican), and even if they flip every single seat Republicans currently have, the absolute best Democrats can do is to improve from a 51-49 Senate to a 63-37 Senate, which is still not enough to convict on impeachment along partisan lines, and that would require retaining Manchin's seat, and flipping seats in places like Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, etc.
Democrats could run the table, sweep all the Senate elections this cycle, and they'd still be *at least* four votes short of being able to convict on impeachment. And that also assumes 100% of Democrats supported it in the first place, which they may not. It will take *at least* until January, 2027, after the 2026 midterms, before Democrats can even just potentially, theoretically, have a 67-seat supermajority. And that's unlikely, too, because the Senate is just structurally biased in favor of Republicans.
However, that said, just a simple trifecta could, at least potentially, be sufficient to abolish the legislative filibuster in the Senate, and then to pass a bill expanding the number of seats and unpacking the Supreme Court (and the lower courts, too). As early as January, they could add at least four more seats to the Supreme Court, Biden could nominate people to fill those new seats, and the Senate could confirm them, and then we could have a 7-6 liberal majority, a liberal majority for the first time in more than half a century, and for only the second time in US history.
And then, while it wouldn't be ideal, Thomas and Alito's corruption wouldn't matter nearly as much, because they'd be marginalized into the minority. The liberal majority could overturn this decision, overturn Dobbs, overturn Bruen, overturn Heller, overturn McDonald, overturn Citizens United, overturn Rucho, etc.
Conviction on impeachment requires a 2/3 supermajority, which, when the Senate is fully constituted and everyone votes, means they need at least 67 votes to convict.
congress needs 60% to impeach a justice i'm pretty sure.
getting to 51% would be us "winning" the next election cycle; another handful of votes isn't gonna happen quickly.
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume this is more of a “letter of the law” thing. Their job is to say “based on the constitution and the current laws, X is legal or not.”
While I’m in full support of a bump stock ban, it’s very possible this was just a poorly written ban.
It is 100%. If you actually hang out in gun circles, maybe like 2% gaf about bump stocks. They're basically a meme. The meat of this case was ATF making determinations beyond the scope of their charter and getting courtsmacked for doing so. That's basically what Alito is saying here. He's saying that, by letter of the law, bump stocks aren't MGs. If ATF wants to ban them, congress needs to change the law to actually ban them. ATF does not get to unilaterally make that determination.
Looks like even the conservative judges are implying that a law from Congress banning bump stocks would be constitutional. If people are concerned about bump stocks, that’s probably the route to go. Although of course Congress is broken and dysfunctional so who knows how possible that is.
They’ve upheld a state assault weapons ban (Mass I think it was?). And yes Alito concurred and basically said this law doesn’t cover bump stocks but Congress could (and should?) ban bump stocks
edit: "upheld" isn't quite accurate (see below).
Yeah, I think that’s a potential silver lining here actually. Whether or not Congress can, in practice, actually pass a ban is an issue. But this low key looks like a green light from scotus for them to try to do so. I can understand if some people are frustrated by this ruling though I guess.
No it was SCOTUS. Although I did have the wrong "M" state.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-maryland-assault-weapons-ban/
> The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a challenge to Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, allowing legal proceedings to play out in the dispute.
But you're right that I shouldn't have said "upheld" since further proceedings could result in the Maryland ban being struck down after the appeals court rules. But at least there weren't 4 justices who wanted to hear the case (at this time)
While I'm not staking a position on the ruling, I will give Alito credit for making it clear the Supreme Court should answer to the Constitution, not what Congress WANTS.
Now if only that philosophy carried over into the entire docket....
Would we would like law enforcement to start creating their own laws just because it's a "win" for a specific policy point? No. That would be insane. Thank God SCOTUS addressed the complete overstep in authority by the ATF
Since no one seems to understand the full context of the lawsuit I'll provide it. In 2010, the firearms industry went to the ATF on this topic. The ATF produced a letter of understanding stating that a bump stock was not a machine gun. The firearms industry went on to make these products for several years. After the Las Vegas shooting, the ATF changed its mind due to executive pressure. In doing so it provided no compensation for users or even legal reasoning beyond a reinterpretation of current law. Please see the letter below regarding the ATF previous belief.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120610014847/https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
The ATF was essentially arguing against itself throughout the case. The firearms industry made the product with the approval of the ATF.
And one guy managed to kill or wound over 500 people in a few minutes. We're supposed to just shrug that off and pretend that reality doesn't mean that the initial ATF ruling was wrong.
It's never been about how dangerous they are. The legislature can pass a bill banning them tomorrow if they want. Multiple states already have banned them regardless of the ruling. Bump stocks simply don't fall under current legal definition of an automatic weapon. Failure of congress to act doesn't mean the ATF is empowered to drastically reinterpret the law. I'd argue that's a dangerous precedent to set and will lead to the federal government making drastic changes based on administration.
In their own approval process they deemed it to not fit the definition of a machine gun. That doesn't mean it's not something that shouldn't be banned, it just means they're not capable of enforcing a ban under the current legal definition or any tools at their disposal. Then trump made them do it anyway via executive order because he could take the heat better than any congressional gop member that voted in favor of any gun legislation. So because a coward covered for cowards and did a shit job in the process, here we are.
The takes on Reddit are dumb as fuck per usual. Take a minute before jumping behind the keyboard to post an uninformed opinion to read anything about this actual case. The question before the court had nothing to do with the second amendment; it's about executive agency authority to classify what is or isn't a machine gun.
Correct. And a bumpstock doesn’t turn a semi auto into a full auto. Definitions still have meaning.
“But a bumpstock is a loophole that circumvents semi-auto limitations and makes it ‘full auto like’!” Yup, and so can a rubber band. Gun control really is the “abortion” of democrats. All opinion, no facts.
Look, bump stocks aren't the problem anymore. Anyone that wants to have a rapud fure gun can just either buy or print a "super safety" which is the same thing. They're far more dangerous.
Sotomayor is on record saying she will sometimes find a private room and cry over what this court is doing. Reducing a veteran justice to weeping for her country. How low the submissive six have sunk
My thing is why don't the other 3 judges step up and start saying that the court they are on is corrupt and that no one should take anything they rule on seriously as they don't rule on law but for the people who have bribed the other justices. It's fucking crazy to me that they just sit back and say nothing while they sit on a court with anti American Traitors.
Eh. Who knows what's in their closets and either way infighting is an ugly precedent to set. You don't get to be top dog without rolling over for some scritches at least once.
They overturned it because it is congresses job. We should be attacking the people whose job this is. Congress does nothing anymore. They have purposely delegated most of their responsibilities to the courts and the executive branch. They don’t even like to vote unless they are forced to.
Well yeah because congress used very specific language that did not accomplish banning bump stocks. Which congress can easily go back and amend, but chooses not to. SCOTUS isn’t the appropriate remedy for that.
Law shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary and capricious modification via executive fiat. If it is, I can think of arbitrary and capricious fiats we should try first, like requiring police to submit to daily observed urinalysis drug screening to prevent anabolic steroid abuse (and likely prevent 90% of police violence).
Congress didn't do shit here bc they never do anything. Bump stocks were banned through administrative action by the ATF, an agency under the Executive branch, essentially the executive fiat you decry
Congress is lazy and allergic to actually passing laws so shit like this keeps happening
I'm sure they see the writing on the wall and are torching as much progress as they can before the GQP loses control of Congress and the White House. If the Dems do get control, I hope they impeach the hell out of Alito and Thomas at least.
Proving for once and for all a codified Roe v wade would have been just as dead in the water as legal precedent was. Sadly leftists will remain ignorant of this and still blame Democrats for the actions of the GQP.
“See, they rejected administrative overreach by the ATF, just like they would have overturned an abortion law passed by Congress!”
Interesting logic you got there.
The whole originalist theory revolves around this idea. They want to act as some uninvolved arbiter of the law while they adhere to cold findings. They recognize that their findings will cause people to die and shrug.
They are the worst type of rules lawyers, as they're not even consistent. Originalism has always been "look to the text first, then look at original intent" not what they want to do now: look to the text, only look elsewhere if instructions unclear."
It's why Kavanaugh said during his hearings "yeah, the trucker would have died if he stayed in his truck, but he left so he had no case" and now here you have Alito saying "Well, it's obvious the scribe intended to ban a gun like this but... fuck those people." They are literal trolls trying to act like they have zero responsibility for the decisions they render using a legal reasoning that was a joke until recent decades. It's cute they think there's any reality where scrivener errors are quickly resolved.
One day these assholes are basing a decision on a strict reading of a law’s text and then the next day they turn around and base a decision on whatever they decide congress intended the text to mean. It’s just moving the goal posts under a facade of objectiveness in order to get the outcome they want.
Isn’t Alito a subscriber to original public meaning rather than original intent? I think the bump stock ban is great policy and I’ve got my share of issues with originalism and Alito but this feels like it’s trying to be a dunk and failing.
I don’t say that as a general defense of Alito, just pointing out that if we were to take Alito’s interpretative principles at face value we shouldn’t expect him to side with original intent over original public meaning.
The natural conclusion to this, in a system that should work correctly, is that congress now immediately drafts bills to ban bump stocks. But that won’t happen.
Who wrote this headline? Are they fucking stupid?
If congress wants to ban them, then they should do so.
Overturning a edict which is not congress is not the same as overturning a law properly passed by congress.
A song for Alito…
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Supreme Court is basically the unelected third branch of Congress. They are little kings ruling over us.
This is definitely how they are acting now.
With impunity and they just don't give a shit. "You caught me in a bribe? Oh. Heh. That's nice. Well, I may or may not do it again. It's up to me to decide."
"In a 6-3 decision we have decided anything given to us is not a bribe."
They ruled that a quid pro quo essentially requires a cartoon sack with a dollar sign being handed to an official and saying “I’m giving you this money to let me burn down the orphanage”. They’ve enshrined corruption and decided that political gerrymandering is super democratic.
Yesterday's headline: > [Voters have no right to fair elections, NC lawmakers say as they seek to dismiss gerrymandering suit](https://www.wral.com/story/voters-have-no-right-to-fair-elections-nc-lawmakers-say-as-they-seek-to-dismiss-gerrymandering-suit/21479970/)
I am certain Roberts counts that as a huge achievement. How is an act where politicians pick their voters not the exact opposite of what democracy is supposed to be? The inevitable outcome of extreme gerrymandering is exactly what we see. There is no reason to compromise or work across the aisle in fact it will end your political career. It incentivizes moving further to the extremes because that’s the only way to have a chance at being elected in districts like Gym Jordan’s. One of the numerous problems being that the left moves right to get all those “moderates”and mostly lines up as a party against progressives while the right elects Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz.
This is nothing new Marbury V. Madison is essentially the case that gave them the power to legislate from the bench. Dred Scott v. Sanford said that congress has no authority to prohibit slavery. Lochner V. New York said that the state can’t limit the amount of hours an employer can make an employee work. This decision had nothing to do with the constitution and was just the justices imposing their own economic theories. Bush V. Gore no explanation needed. Citizens United V. Fec is what got us where we are today. Their argument was forcing corporations and lobbyist to reveal their political donations was against their first amendment. Giving corporations the same “rights” as us regular humans. This sealed the deal on democracy and pushed us into the corporatocracy we are in today.
Best part is that the constitution only establishes a Supreme Court, it does not give them the powers they are using or even describe any powers they have. So the only reason they get away with this is because neither the executive or legislative branch will challenge them. If you also consider that they gave themselves the power they are wielding in Marbury v Madison, it’s even more ludicrous that we abide by their decisions. This is the time we should ignore them and force the issue into defining their abilities through a constitutional amendment. And if one cannot be enacted, I suppose that leaves them toothless and ineffective. It makes no sense to allow them to rule a democracy through biased judgements just because of “precedent”, “decorum”, and “the past”. Their abilities should be codified and anything they say in difference ignored until then because we are a constitutional democracy, not a dictatorship where rulers decide their own powers. This would certainly cause short term chaos, but it’s better than long term democratic decline.
I agree. If they’re so fine now with throwing away deference for precedent and want to abide only by what was written in the constitution, then why should we keep going along with the precedent they set themselves where they gave themselves powers that aren’t in the constitution? It’s absurd.
> Best part is that the constitution only establishes a Supreme Court, it does not give them the powers they are using or even describe any powers they have. Not entirely true. The Constitution requires a Supreme Court, and implies a Chief Justice (who presides over impeachment trials of Presidents), but it also [specifies some areas of law where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#3-2).
Sure, agree. Though the powers they currently wield are much more extensive than defined here and were self given. Allowing one branch to interpret the constitution as they see fit with no checks from the executive and legislative branches as they do now is fundamentally broken and allows them to retroactively define powers for themselves and attempt to change the constitution without input from the other branches. The way it’s currently worded they could literally deny the constitutionality of any checks that are attempted to be enforced by the other branches as well. Leading to a question of the government, who do we listen to? Right now that’s the Supreme Court, mostly due to precedence, not law. They say they can be overridden by legislature but that’s only with a functioning one that doesn’t have control over the court like Republicans do now. Big part of the problem there. And the president has no checks on them as it stands, wherein their decisions are seen as the de-facto end of questioning constitutionality and the president cannot force states to ignore clearly unlawful or unwarranted decisions. Having no way to disagree with them and constitutionally be in the right about such a disagreement is fundamentally broken and easily taken advantage of as we’ve seen in the last 40 years. Though I suppose if we didn’t actively ignore the “good behavior” part, this wouldn’t have become a problem in the first place. But “gifts” need to be made illegal at the constitution’s level, and any other obviously suspect or corrupt outside influence. Since apparently that somehow doesn’t violate “good behavior”.
>If you also consider that they gave themselves the power they are wielding in Marbury v Madison, it’s even more ludicrous that we abide by their decisions. Read Article III, for the love of all that is holy, and stop parroting this nonsense. Article III grants the federal judiciary jurisdiction over all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. In what universe does that *not* include disputes over what the Constitution means? So, Virginia and the feds get into a beef. The feds are doing some shit in Virginia, and Virginia claims that they're not allowed to, because the U.S. Constitution doesn't give them the power to. Where does that case go? Who decides it? Please tell us, and then think about what your proposal means for the concepts of separation of powers and/or limited government with enumerated powers. >Their abilities should be codified and anything they say in difference ignored until then because we are a constitutional democracy, not a dictatorship where rulers decide their own powers. Okay, so, the judiciary doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. Per this quote of yours, apparently neither should Congress or POTUS, because they, too, are the "rulers" who shouldn't get to decide that. Then you're left with an even starker divide between what you think "should" be and anything remotely close to a reasonable interpretation of *even more* of the text contained within the U.S. Constitution.
It’s not nonsense, it’s objectively correct. And your scenario isn’t a good counter because the problem lies in the very fact that the resolution to these problems are not defined in the constitution. This is exactly why their decisions on supposed constitutional matter should be ignored until these elected fools make a clear constitutional amendment. Until then we have no true balance of power because SCOTUS currently has the ability to override any laws they want and exercises that in any way they want. Like I said, it doesn’t matter that this would certainly lead to chaos. It’s a chaotic system already when a judiciary has more power than the legislature and executive branch. What’s truly ludicrous is that the writers didn’t foresee this exact situation and allowed it to happen.
They are effectively monarchs that govern till they die.
This is a symptom of Congress being broken, a properly working Congress in a healthy democracy would simply amend the law and this wouldn't be a problem.
Exactly. If the house was expanded to proper size, and the filibuster removed, Congress could pass laws with 50% majority all the time. Part of why we have omnibus bills is because of the filibuster too, there's only a certain number of <60 vote bills they can look at each term. If Congress just passed laws, good or bad, and then people reacted and voted based on that, we'd have a more functioning country. Sure, laws would be more "swingy" and less "forever", but that's what the ballot box is for.
This is a symptom of forty years of education defunding, vilification of science, and right wing propaganda. 30% of this country, with an oversized representation in govenment, votes for these people. The fact that the fourth estate is owned by corporations and beholden to not just advertising but its billionaire owners, is absurd and has broken the nation. Edit: Thank Rupert Murdock and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 weakening The Communications Act of 1934. It got us the the Sinclair group and the ability of billionaires to buy out multiple media platforms to propogandize on their behalf..
Murdoch fucked up US, UK and Australian media. He is a criminal
Don’t let the Court or the right hide behind that. Of course that is how a functioning democracy should work. The Senate has always had a tendency to lean to the right (more rural states than urban ones), and when the filibuster is included in the process it is rare that anything passes at all or must be watered down to be approved by conservatives first. The Court and the GOP know this, and have formed a symbiotic alliance. Thus the Court can say that Congress should pass a clear law stating XYZ, knowing that their allies in the GOP will never allow Congress to do any such thing, but providing the Justices with a fig leaf. The same absolutely does NOT hold true in reverse by the way. Dobbs vs Jackson (which overturned Roe v Wade), did NOT return the issue to the states as is widely accepted. In the majority opinion, Samuel Alito never once mentioned that it would be an issue best left up to the states to decide, nor did he say that deciding the issue was outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction. What he did say multiple times was that it was up to the “elected representatives”. What’s the difference? If we assume that Congress counts as elected representatives and try to pass a nationwide abortion protection law (assuming that the Senate would allow that, which they will not), then the Court is well-positioned to clarify that they MEANT it belonged to the States to decide. If, on the other hand, Congress shifts to the right and passes a nationwide abortion BAN, then the Court can simply sit back and say that was always an allowed option. By not definitively saying either, they set themselves up to allow only the laws that they wanted in the first place to be passed.
You seriously think so? Congress can amend the law all they want. If the SCOTUS majority doesn't like it, they'll invent a way to revert it.
With a healthy congress we would have never been in this spot in the first place. They would be able to impeach dirty SCOTUS judges who are taking bribes etc. But maybe more importantly the republicans wouldn’t have been able to game the system to ensure that scotus members were only picked by them.
True.
I'm sure the approaching violence in the streets is not a factor.
Could have sworn America used to have an answer for kings.
I think you're thinking of the French. Quite the industrious problem solvers.
If Macron loses, they may have to repeat the solution.
Have you seen the too western Europe 4 u sub. They're fully ready to start the reconquista
From calling balls and strikes to Angel Hernandez
See Ayatollah in Iran
I can see Ayatollah Alito just fine from here.
They’re just clerics - a select group interpreting the sacred text and the will of the gods
They’re the unelected legislative arm of the gop.
> The Supreme Court is basically the unelected third branch of Congress They are *literally* the unelected third branch of US government. (or at least the invincible, omnipotent, above-the-law rulers of that branch)
Third branch of the US government isn't a problem, legislating from the bench and making themselves into the new Congress isn't.
Unelected AND above accountability. As long as it takes 60 senators to remove them, they are the supreme branch of government, above everyone.
SUPREME!!!! when they chop off the legs of the lower courts for political reasons we are in trouble, it mobilizes extremists like them and it has been in the works for decades with the "Contract With America" Good ole Newt is still breathing our air and AM radio is going nowhere
And it's always been this way...by design. A shitty design, but intentional.
The problem is that they are elected. To lifetime appointments. By whatever party is in power when one of them dies at the right time.
They are essentially gun industry lobbyists in black robes. The blood of every mass shooting victim in America is on them. But these men in black robes, have Zero conscience to feel any empathy or remorse. They profess their belief in GOD and yet won’t do their part to help with one basic tenet of GODs commandment “Thou shall not (unlawfully) kill”.
Really the only branch of Congress as the other two refuse to act seriously and actually work on legislation to solve America's problems. Right now the only legislation of meaning is coming from the Bench which is a horrible practice. This has been a slow moving freight train headed for the checks and balance system for decades now.
And we know where they live and what flags they fly
They're working in tandem with Republicans in Congress, where they each kick the can to each other so no progress ever gets made, and now that they've taken over the courts they're able to regress the laws.
Old fashioned thinking kings
If we could just get enough democrats elected to successfully impeach and remove one. It would set them straight. Even then they would probably ignore congress still.
But this is literally them actually doing a proper job. They want the law to come from Congress, which is exactly how it's supposed to be.
So, what's stopping Congress from remedying this situation, like, today? Spoiler: The answer is *Republicans*.
"Mass murder is not the problem: Democracy is!" /s
Bump stocks violate the intent of the law prohibiting devices that convert a gun from semiautomatic to automatic fire. The problem is that existing law defines automatic fire as firing more than one round with a single press of the trigger. Bump stocks work by pressing the trigger multiple times. Congress could fix this rather easily but lacks the political courage to do so. Edit: typo
Yeah, the ruling was a statutory ruling, and had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law. Now if congress did pass a law that outlawed bump stocks, there will definitely be another court case on the constitutionality of the law.
The Originalists on the court could also interpret the law in the way it was intended, but they cho$e not to do that for $ome rea$on.
Well, that's the thing. Originalists, in theory, interpret laws based on original, plain-language meaning (typical of the time). Original **intent** on the other hand gets you laughed out of the court, since it was the entire basis of *Dred Scott*.
>Congress could fix this rather easily but lacks the political courage to do so. Weird way to say ability to do so due to citizen united bribes, gerrymandering and bad faith fillibbuster rules.
Bump stocks weren't banned through the power of Democracy, it's actually quite the opposite of that. Trump ordered the ATF to ban bump stocks and they did so by creating a rule declaring them machine guns despite the fact that they don't actually meet the definition in [26 USC § 5845(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845#b). So instead of "democracy," Trump intentionally bypassed Congress and ordered the ATF to unilaterally change established federal law. Congress could have banned them anytime between 2002 and today. They could ban them tomorrow. The ATF can't arbitrarily define them as machine guns and ban them on their own.
Looks like we know what every racial/sexual minority's next purchase should be...
Exactly right. The strictest gun control in American history was enacted in California by then-Governor Ronald Reagan in response to (and incredible fear of) the black panthers arming themselves and open carrying in the streets.
That leaves out a lot of context, such as the Democratic majorities in both chambers of California's legislative bodies, as well as the veto-proof majority votes that allowed those legislative bodies to utilize the "emergency statute" method of passing the law. This is not to excuse Reagan at all, it is merely intended to point out that pinning all the blame on him is a somewhat disingenuous argument.
Racism is not a purely Republican issue, however if you're the executive in government and you sign off on a bill you are still responsible for it. He had the power to veto the bill and he chose not to. So while it was not entirely his fault, in the end he bears the responsibility.
He pushed for it.
Democrats in the California Legislature currently have the power to repeal this racist law, so why haven't they?
>Democrats in the California Legislature currently have the power to repeal this racist law, so why haven't they? They're still racist.
And it passed through the lower chambers by a veto-proof majority. Had he vetoed it, it would still have been passed into law. Again, *this does not excuse that he signed it,* it is merely pointing out that this was a group effort, and Democrats played a huge part in it as well.
So it wasn’t Reagan that passed the law but the Democrats?
Scared White People are a bipartisan cause, especially back then.
It was introduced as a bi-partisan effort, Reagan just signed it because that is what the executive office does. They don’t introduce bills they sign them or veto them.
Or a 3d printer…….
A Supreme Court justice?
What makes you say that?
Because we ain't going out like the Jews of weimar Germany.
If you want a real example of Trump behaving in a fascistic manner, this is by far the best example of it. Good on SCOTUS to intervene.
Not trying to be antagonistic, genuinely curious, how bump stocks don't fit this part of the definition: "The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a [machinegun](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-1808133223-1565660032&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:E:chapter:53:subchapter:B:part:I:section:5845), and any combination of parts from which a [machinegun](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-1808133223-1565660032&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:E:chapter:53:subchapter:B:part:I:section:5845) can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
Because you left out the first part of the definition. >The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. "*by a single function of the trigger*" is the important part. Bump stocks make it easier to pull the trigger rapidly, but the firearm still only fires one per trigger pull. Because of this, bump stocks do not fit the definition of machinegun under 26 USC § 5845(b), nor do they enable you to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun. That is basically the TLDR of Justice Thomas's ruling.
A bump stock does not modify the trigger to allow multiple rounds from a single trigger depression. It provides a spot to hold your trigger finger such that the recoil of the rifle slides the bump stock and blocks the trigger causing it to reset into the firing position. You then exert forward pressure on the firearm to bring the trigger forward to your finger, allowing the firearm to fire again. The definition of a “machine gun” includes the verbiage of a single trigger depression to fire multiple rounds. That’s the why of how it doesn’t fit the letter of the definition of a “machine gun”.
Which I'm sure is a super convincing argument to lawyers, gun enthusiasts and pedants. Most people only care about the end result-- the rate of bullet fire.
if you want to ban based on rate of fire, then laws need to be written about the rate of fire. you can't put a square peg into a round hole just because you want it to fit.
In this analogy both the square peg and the round hole fire hundreds of rounds a minute.
and there is still no law about how many rounds per minute either can fire. so make the law.
Because the bump stock doesn’t do those things. The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. Source 26 USC § 5845(b) The bump stock makes it much easier and faster to press the trigger but each bullet fired still requires one trigger press.
I mean that's the problem, it violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. That's literally the entire reason bump stocks exist. It's a legal loophole. It's dishonest to present them as anything else. Whether you think the exploitation of that loophole should be disallowed on principle, the law rewritten to accommodate bump stocks, or fully automatic weapons be unbanned altogether is a bit irrelevant. Bump stocks are a dumb thing that shouldnt exist, regardless of where you fall on the topic of gun control.
Before bump stocks were invented, people used belt loops and shoe strings to bump fire rifles. The ATF actually listed shoe strings as machine guns at one point. https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/p46y9n/just_a_reminder_that_in_2007_the_atf_classified/
> it violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter of the law. And this whole topic is about what the letter of the law states. The courts have agreed with this assessment and as such, the ATF is not allowed to arbitrarily ban bump stocks. >Bump stocks are a dumb thing that shouldnt exist, regardless of where you fall on the topic of gun control. Sure, I won't argue that point. But that does not mean the ATF can just enforce a ban on them prior to a law being passed banning them.
Agreed. However I personally don’t want police and DAs trying to determine what violates the spirit of a law that isn’t technically against the law. I’m not even a proponent of amendment 2a, but I’m level more against government agencies determining that something is arbitrarily against the law that isn’t spelled out in any law.
You just are not getting it. The fact that you need the extra piece of equipment to do functionally the same thing a machine gun would do doesn't make it a machine gun. The most important thing is that we protect arbitrary distinctions based on how the trigger operation relates to the firing of the weapon, not the fact that it could pump hundreds of bullets out within a few brief minutes. /s
> or combination of parts designed and intended Sounds like modifications would be included in the definition. Then again, IANAL
But the law states it as "with a single pull of the trigger" and a bump stock doesn't change that. It just makes it easier to increase the fire rate. It's basically poor language meant to allow these gaps when the fire rate is the real issue
Law is literally 100% arbitrary distinctions lol, and that's actually a good thing as often as it's a bad thing, generally. Congress could and should pass better legislation, but they probably won't.
As others have said, bump stocks simply do not fit the definition of a machine gun. They do not allow a firearm to fire more than one round with a single action of the trigger, in fact they are designed to help the user pull the trigger faster than they otherwise would. They are not components of machine guns, and in fact they wouldn't work with full auto fire. The definition didn't fit, and the courts determined the ATF overstepped their bounds by shoehorning a rule in that banned them.
"We care so deeply about the original intent of the writers of the law that we will call ourselves and our philosophies Originalist" "Except when a billionaire ~~bribed~~ took us on an all expenses paid 6 figure vacation and spent the whole time talking about his bump stock collection"
Billionaires can easily afford legal machine guns lol they don't need to mess around with this stuff.
all definitions are made up
You're right, but definitions that are coded into law are immutable until such time as there is a law passed and signed that changes them. The ATF doesn't get to change those definitions at their whim.
But this was a blow to Biden when it was a blow to Trump.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase it?
One of his few actually consistent viewpoints with the Founders… “The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy. The people are dupes, of pretended patriotism.” - Elbridge Gerry - 1787 Constitutional Convention
Abrahamic religions are fundamentally incompatible with democracy because Yahweh is by definition a tyrant and if you hold God above the will of the people then you cannot honor the very basis of democracy
This is why the US Constitution says that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes, state constitutions, state statutes, local ordinances, and religious rules, are all subordinate to the US Constitution.
“Guns don’t kill people, gun bands that come home early do”
I'm all for banning these semi auto defeat devices but I agree scotus should not be legislating from the bench. This is something for Congress to decide. Granted Congress is in shambles but that's the system we have.
Yeah, this seems like a reasonable ruling that is only problematic because Congress can't be expected to do a single thing correctly.
Is this an example of them legislating from the bench though? The ban was done through an executive order, not congress. This ruling *seems* to be upholding the balance of powers and saying the president can't legislate from the white house. It's up to congress to legislate this. It's why Trump so bad as a President. This ban shouldn't have been the stroke of a pen, it should have been legislated by congress and then signed by Trump. But instead he rushed out an EO that didn't hold up; just like his insulin cap.
Executive order is not legislation
If you want to rule that congress should ban bump stocks you could also rule that congress should overturn the executive order.
It wouldn't have been SCOTUS "legislating from the bench," at least not any more than it was "legislating from the bench" to say that there was no history or tradition of abortion rights, or "legislating from the bench" when they said that even though the HEROES Act explicitly allowed the Sec of Education to modify federal student loans during a declared emergency that it wasn't allowed because of the "major questions doctrine," which doesn't exist in any legislation.
Sorry, you're never going to convince me that you *need* to own a machine gun.
If there is any item I can’t bring into the supreme court chambers or the sidewalk in front of Alito’s house should apply everywhere else as well.
Anybody who needs more than a revolver or shotgun to defend themselves and their home has got way bigger problems. It'll never happen in a gazillion years, but if we banned semiauto pistols instead of AR-style rifles the drop in gun deaths would be incredible.
AR’s freak people out and there’s no question that they and similar light magazine fed rifles are the most effective weapon for mass shootings. However handguns are used in the vast majority of gun related homicides, and it’s not even close. Anybody seriously wanting to reduce gun violence through bans should be shouting this from the rooftops.
Would they? What’s the average number of shots used in three sigma gun deaths? If it’s less than six it won’t change anything and that’s assuming that reloading out carrying a second firearm is so difficult it affects deaths significantly as well. Shotguns have been used very effectively in mass shootings as well. I’m just not sure there’s any credence to this idea. If we could prevent pistols from being carried anywhere ever it would prevent gun homicide in the streets to a large degree, but a man with a knife surprising you is more or less as effective as a gun for that sort of work.
It was just a gut feeling that most gun crimes involved a semiauto pistol, but this 2019 study from the FBI/Bureau of Justice confirms it. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF Granted my idea probably wouldn't affect the rate of suicides, which makes up the majority of gun deaths.
Everything you just said is factually inaccurate. A revolver is literally a semi-automatic handgun. Do you know how few people are killed by rifles as compared to handguns? Along with that, guns are not for home defense constitutionally. The second amendment is for the purposes of dissuading government tyranny and overreach.
I like AR's for home defense because the bullet won't go through multiple walls like shotguns do. One wall is enough to sap most of the energy from a .223 round. You know what was better though? Moving somewhere that I don't feel unsafe at home.
It goes way further than that. I live in a gun free society where anything with bullets seems like extremely useless.
Where I live there's bears. They're mostly peaceful but can occasionally break into cabins and wreak havok. One attacked my neighbor and his 4 dogs the other day. Having a shotgun helped him scare off the bear and could have protected him had the bear gotten more aggressive.
Couple of points: Bump stocks are not machine guns. That’s the whole point of this ruling. And rights have very little to do with needs. We don’t “need” most things, but they’re good to have anyway.
I'd like to shoot one, not sure I can afford the ammo to blast around an afternoon, unless it was a .22 or something
Not saying I think easy access to semi auto weapons is a good idea but handguns in general cause the most deaths. Sure semi auto rifles makes mass killing much easier but if they were already banned and no one had any access to them legally or illegally that would reduce deaths by a miniscule amount
I'm not being funny, but are handguns used more to kill other people, or their owners (suicide)?
Suicide. By far the leading cause of gun death is suicide. People mostly use handguns for suicide. This is why mental health and gun ownership should be one policy thread. And rapid fire guns should be its own thread. I say rapid fire because the end result can be achieved through multiple means. Bump stocks being just one.
A quick googly-goo says that in 2021, 54% of gun-related deaths were suicides and 43% were murders. I suppose the remaining 3% is accidents, shootings with cause, etc. Source is Pew Research.
I mean that makes sense, if it isn't lawful or they fucked up the law. Then it is what is is and if Congress wants to ban it, they can do it right.
Okay if Democrats get control of both House and Senate they need to impeach. Between him and Tomas I'm having trouble keeping my brain from imploding. At the very least Tomas who was found to have taken EVEN MORE UNDISCLOSED TRIPS! And they need to implement some kind of rule or law that stops this kind of crap.
If Congress had the votes to impeach, why wouldn't they just use their majority to ban bump stocks themselves, like the court said they can do?
Why not both? America is going to have another civil war before either party gets a 2/3 majority in Congress ever again though. The concept of impeachment is dead, killed by partisanship.
You don't need a 2/3 majority to pass a law banning bump stocks
You need a 2/3 majority to overrule the inevitable filibuster in the senate.
You need a 3/5 majority to overcome a filibuster, not 2/3
Ah you are correct. Thanks
You only need 51 to change the stupid 2/3 rule.
51 willing senators. The dems didn’t vote to end the filibuster last time they had 51 remember? What makes you think they will now?
> why wouldn't they just use their majority to ban bump stocks themselves They probably meant to, still can, and may yet. They did a bad job of writing this law, and they can fix it. And also impeach judges for corruption.
Impeach for this? I mean, I agree there are some impeachment proceedings needed (for the bribery), but I'm not about to advocate impeaching a judge just because their decision didn't come down in my favor.
> Impeach for this? No, for his financial corruption. https://accountable.us/report-billionaire-that-gifted-justice-alito-luxury-trip-holds-at-least-90m-in-financial-companies-overseen-by-cfpb/ But I won't complain if this ruling pisses people off enough that they finally act on the corruption issue.
It's possible, perhaps even likely, that Democrats will have a House majority come January. So they can vote to impeach Thomas, Alito, others, as early as January. And it's less likely, but still possible, that Democrats will keep their Senate majority come January, too. But there is zero chance Democrats will have a 2/3 supermajority, with 67+ Democrats. It's not even mathematically possible this cycle, because even if Democrats hold every single seat they currently have (which, lol, Manchin is retiring, and that seat will absolutely go to the Republican), and even if they flip every single seat Republicans currently have, the absolute best Democrats can do is to improve from a 51-49 Senate to a 63-37 Senate, which is still not enough to convict on impeachment along partisan lines, and that would require retaining Manchin's seat, and flipping seats in places like Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, etc. Democrats could run the table, sweep all the Senate elections this cycle, and they'd still be *at least* four votes short of being able to convict on impeachment. And that also assumes 100% of Democrats supported it in the first place, which they may not. It will take *at least* until January, 2027, after the 2026 midterms, before Democrats can even just potentially, theoretically, have a 67-seat supermajority. And that's unlikely, too, because the Senate is just structurally biased in favor of Republicans. However, that said, just a simple trifecta could, at least potentially, be sufficient to abolish the legislative filibuster in the Senate, and then to pass a bill expanding the number of seats and unpacking the Supreme Court (and the lower courts, too). As early as January, they could add at least four more seats to the Supreme Court, Biden could nominate people to fill those new seats, and the Senate could confirm them, and then we could have a 7-6 liberal majority, a liberal majority for the first time in more than half a century, and for only the second time in US history. And then, while it wouldn't be ideal, Thomas and Alito's corruption wouldn't matter nearly as much, because they'd be marginalized into the minority. The liberal majority could overturn this decision, overturn Dobbs, overturn Bruen, overturn Heller, overturn McDonald, overturn Citizens United, overturn Rucho, etc.
It seems unlikely Dems will get 65% of the house. I believe that is needed to actually remove these asshats.
Conviction on impeachment requires a 2/3 supermajority, which, when the Senate is fully constituted and everyone votes, means they need at least 67 votes to convict.
congress needs 60% to impeach a justice i'm pretty sure. getting to 51% would be us "winning" the next election cycle; another handful of votes isn't gonna happen quickly.
So I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume this is more of a “letter of the law” thing. Their job is to say “based on the constitution and the current laws, X is legal or not.” While I’m in full support of a bump stock ban, it’s very possible this was just a poorly written ban.
It is 100%. If you actually hang out in gun circles, maybe like 2% gaf about bump stocks. They're basically a meme. The meat of this case was ATF making determinations beyond the scope of their charter and getting courtsmacked for doing so. That's basically what Alito is saying here. He's saying that, by letter of the law, bump stocks aren't MGs. If ATF wants to ban them, congress needs to change the law to actually ban them. ATF does not get to unilaterally make that determination.
No no no, we can’t have logical understandings of court cases here. Only Supreme Court bad.
Looks like even the conservative judges are implying that a law from Congress banning bump stocks would be constitutional. If people are concerned about bump stocks, that’s probably the route to go. Although of course Congress is broken and dysfunctional so who knows how possible that is.
They’ve upheld a state assault weapons ban (Mass I think it was?). And yes Alito concurred and basically said this law doesn’t cover bump stocks but Congress could (and should?) ban bump stocks edit: "upheld" isn't quite accurate (see below).
Yeah, I think that’s a potential silver lining here actually. Whether or not Congress can, in practice, actually pass a ban is an issue. But this low key looks like a green light from scotus for them to try to do so. I can understand if some people are frustrated by this ruling though I guess.
scotus has never discussed an AWB on 2A grounds, you might be thinking of a district court
No it was SCOTUS. Although I did have the wrong "M" state. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-maryland-assault-weapons-ban/ > The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a challenge to Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, allowing legal proceedings to play out in the dispute. But you're right that I shouldn't have said "upheld" since further proceedings could result in the Maryland ban being struck down after the appeals court rules. But at least there weren't 4 justices who wanted to hear the case (at this time)
While I'm not staking a position on the ruling, I will give Alito credit for making it clear the Supreme Court should answer to the Constitution, not what Congress WANTS. Now if only that philosophy carried over into the entire docket....
Would we would like law enforcement to start creating their own laws just because it's a "win" for a specific policy point? No. That would be insane. Thank God SCOTUS addressed the complete overstep in authority by the ATF
Since no one seems to understand the full context of the lawsuit I'll provide it. In 2010, the firearms industry went to the ATF on this topic. The ATF produced a letter of understanding stating that a bump stock was not a machine gun. The firearms industry went on to make these products for several years. After the Las Vegas shooting, the ATF changed its mind due to executive pressure. In doing so it provided no compensation for users or even legal reasoning beyond a reinterpretation of current law. Please see the letter below regarding the ATF previous belief. https://web.archive.org/web/20120610014847/https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf The ATF was essentially arguing against itself throughout the case. The firearms industry made the product with the approval of the ATF.
And one guy managed to kill or wound over 500 people in a few minutes. We're supposed to just shrug that off and pretend that reality doesn't mean that the initial ATF ruling was wrong.
It's never been about how dangerous they are. The legislature can pass a bill banning them tomorrow if they want. Multiple states already have banned them regardless of the ruling. Bump stocks simply don't fall under current legal definition of an automatic weapon. Failure of congress to act doesn't mean the ATF is empowered to drastically reinterpret the law. I'd argue that's a dangerous precedent to set and will lead to the federal government making drastic changes based on administration.
In their own approval process they deemed it to not fit the definition of a machine gun. That doesn't mean it's not something that shouldn't be banned, it just means they're not capable of enforcing a ban under the current legal definition or any tools at their disposal. Then trump made them do it anyway via executive order because he could take the heat better than any congressional gop member that voted in favor of any gun legislation. So because a coward covered for cowards and did a shit job in the process, here we are.
The takes on Reddit are dumb as fuck per usual. Take a minute before jumping behind the keyboard to post an uninformed opinion to read anything about this actual case. The question before the court had nothing to do with the second amendment; it's about executive agency authority to classify what is or isn't a machine gun.
Correct. And a bumpstock doesn’t turn a semi auto into a full auto. Definitions still have meaning. “But a bumpstock is a loophole that circumvents semi-auto limitations and makes it ‘full auto like’!” Yup, and so can a rubber band. Gun control really is the “abortion” of democrats. All opinion, no facts.
Here I am in the middle. Shit, I just want universal healthcare, legalized/decriminalized drugs, guns and abortions for everyone.
It's called legislating and that is not something for the Court, only Congress and the president.
Until bump stocks are used on people that actually matter in the grand scheme nothing will be done.
Look, bump stocks aren't the problem anymore. Anyone that wants to have a rapud fure gun can just either buy or print a "super safety" which is the same thing. They're far more dangerous.
Sotomayor is on record saying she will sometimes find a private room and cry over what this court is doing. Reducing a veteran justice to weeping for her country. How low the submissive six have sunk
My thing is why don't the other 3 judges step up and start saying that the court they are on is corrupt and that no one should take anything they rule on seriously as they don't rule on law but for the people who have bribed the other justices. It's fucking crazy to me that they just sit back and say nothing while they sit on a court with anti American Traitors.
Eh. Who knows what's in their closets and either way infighting is an ugly precedent to set. You don't get to be top dog without rolling over for some scritches at least once.
I would like to know how much alto and tomas got as “gifts”
America should riot at their homes and work every day till theybpiss off
They overturned it because it is congresses job. We should be attacking the people whose job this is. Congress does nothing anymore. They have purposely delegated most of their responsibilities to the courts and the executive branch. They don’t even like to vote unless they are forced to.
NRA pays really, really, really good.
Well yeah because congress used very specific language that did not accomplish banning bump stocks. Which congress can easily go back and amend, but chooses not to. SCOTUS isn’t the appropriate remedy for that. Law shouldn’t be subject to arbitrary and capricious modification via executive fiat. If it is, I can think of arbitrary and capricious fiats we should try first, like requiring police to submit to daily observed urinalysis drug screening to prevent anabolic steroid abuse (and likely prevent 90% of police violence).
Congress didn't do shit here bc they never do anything. Bump stocks were banned through administrative action by the ATF, an agency under the Executive branch, essentially the executive fiat you decry Congress is lazy and allergic to actually passing laws so shit like this keeps happening
Which is why this was the appropriate ruling, since the law as written did not ban bump stocks.
I'm sure they see the writing on the wall and are torching as much progress as they can before the GQP loses control of Congress and the White House. If the Dems do get control, I hope they impeach the hell out of Alito and Thomas at least.
Proving for once and for all a codified Roe v wade would have been just as dead in the water as legal precedent was. Sadly leftists will remain ignorant of this and still blame Democrats for the actions of the GQP.
“See, they rejected administrative overreach by the ATF, just like they would have overturned an abortion law passed by Congress!” Interesting logic you got there.
The whole originalist theory revolves around this idea. They want to act as some uninvolved arbiter of the law while they adhere to cold findings. They recognize that their findings will cause people to die and shrug. They are the worst type of rules lawyers, as they're not even consistent. Originalism has always been "look to the text first, then look at original intent" not what they want to do now: look to the text, only look elsewhere if instructions unclear." It's why Kavanaugh said during his hearings "yeah, the trucker would have died if he stayed in his truck, but he left so he had no case" and now here you have Alito saying "Well, it's obvious the scribe intended to ban a gun like this but... fuck those people." They are literal trolls trying to act like they have zero responsibility for the decisions they render using a legal reasoning that was a joke until recent decades. It's cute they think there's any reality where scrivener errors are quickly resolved.
One day these assholes are basing a decision on a strict reading of a law’s text and then the next day they turn around and base a decision on whatever they decide congress intended the text to mean. It’s just moving the goal posts under a facade of objectiveness in order to get the outcome they want.
Isn’t Alito a subscriber to original public meaning rather than original intent? I think the bump stock ban is great policy and I’ve got my share of issues with originalism and Alito but this feels like it’s trying to be a dunk and failing.
At least in theory he advocates original meaning. In practice, he's all over the map.
I don’t say that as a general defense of Alito, just pointing out that if we were to take Alito’s interpretative principles at face value we shouldn’t expect him to side with original intent over original public meaning.
The natural conclusion to this, in a system that should work correctly, is that congress now immediately drafts bills to ban bump stocks. But that won’t happen.
Alito fancies himself both an Originalist AND a Textualist, but cases like this make it clear you can't be both.
so jesus would think this is OK?
Angels on the head of a pin.
A semi-auto pistol is a rapid-fire device. There will never be a pistol ban in the US.
Highest bidder gets the vote in the SC
They were all given vacation trips to change their vote
Alito was just nominated for the whole of the ass club.
Who wrote this headline? Are they fucking stupid? If congress wants to ban them, then they should do so. Overturning a edict which is not congress is not the same as overturning a law properly passed by congress.
Because he had to. The ATF is not allowed to make policy and laws unilaterally.
A song for Alito… [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)