While this is the second recent ruling on firearm rights, this one is particularly notable because it's not overturning a law, but determining whether the ATF was correct in ruling or re-defining...
While this is the second recent ruling on firearm rights, this one is particularly notable because it's not overturning a law, but determining whether the ATF was correct in ruling or re-defining a particular accessory as complying or not complying with the intent of an existing law (which I guess can be generally explained as a ban on civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons classed as "machine guns").
Wiki explains:
The ATF interpreted a "single function of the trigger" to mean a "single movement of the trigger", and since the trigger moved for each shot, the [first bump stock] was deemed to not be a machine gun. Later, in 2006, the ATF reversed course and reinterpreted the language to mean "single pull of the trigger", which reclassified the [bump stock] as a machine gun.
The ATF ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation and allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.
So that's how that ATF regulation works.
Since pistol braces are accessories defined by an ATF interpretation as to what complies with the National Firearms Act (NFA), I would expect the ban on pistol braces to be challenged (and ruled against) by this court as well in the future. Pistol braces were originally intended for one particular use, but also make it so that individuals can add a buttstock-like device to a short-barreled weapon such as a pistol, making it act more like a rifle with a short barrel (i.e. a more ergonomic rifle for use in confined spaces). Short-barreled rifles are specially regulated by the NFA, but the ATF decided a couple years ago that pistol braces circumvented the intent of regulation of short-barreled rifles. As a result, owners were given a period to become grandfathered-in to the law and then asked to destroy any accessories that had become non-compliant.
(Thanks, mycketforvirrad, for fixing the submission's tags!)
Yeah this whole thing has been a mess. Bump stocks should almost absolutely be banned in my eyes, but at the same time the way they tried to go about it was asking for it to be challenged and shot...
Yeah this whole thing has been a mess. Bump stocks should almost absolutely be banned in my eyes, but at the same time the way they tried to go about it was asking for it to be challenged and shot down (although again this is partly because of our useless congress).
I've always found the SBR/no stocks on anything under X inches (which is why the pistol brace ban exists) thing weird though. IF you're going to allow civilians(hell and local law enforcement) to own guns, they should be accurate so in the rare case of justified use, you don't harm others.
Putting a stock on a gun makes it much easier to aim properly so you hit what you're shooting at. I know the original argument against SBR's for civilians was that it's much more firepower than a handgun and you don't need that, but at the same time a 22/9mm with a stock is probably what most people should reasonably be allowed to own in any sort of close site suburban area. The whole thing is a mess of backwards thinking from all sides just to "win" rather than achieve any logical regulation.
The simple truth is that short rifles and short shotguns were never a problem, and continue to not be a problem today. The 1934 National Firearms Act originally wanted to restrict handgun ownership, and the clauses relating to SBRs and SBSs were simply to close the loophole of a person cutting down a rifle or shotgun to get around a handgun prohibition. That handgun (effective) prohibition was removed before the legislation was passed, but the SBR/SBS parts were left in
Today is also the day that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of a mass shooting in 2018, is being demolished. And a month after the arrest of an Arizona man was arrested while driving...
While I don't personally think bump stocks should be allowed, I do think the ATF probably overstepped here. It's odd to hear judges suggesting that "common sense" be the standard here. Nothing...
While I don't personally think bump stocks should be allowed, I do think the ATF probably overstepped here.
Justices from the court’s liberal wing suggested during oral arguments it was “common sense” that anything capable of unleashing a “torrent of bullets” was a machine gun under federal law.
It's odd to hear judges suggesting that "common sense" be the standard here. Nothing about American firearms law is common sense, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you sit on. Politicians are more than happy to argue for common sense or nitpick the law, whichever suits them at the time. But I would expect judges to be a little more nuanced.
I agree that it's an issue of nuance, but here I think the "common sense" term is really just an easy way of expressing that it's an outstanding issue rather than one that's been fully fleshed out...
I agree that it's an issue of nuance, but here I think the "common sense" term is really just an easy way of expressing that it's an outstanding issue rather than one that's been fully fleshed out in writing either by lawmakers or by courts.
However SCOTUS's ruling in 2022 has caused confusion since then on how to apply existing laws. The article explains:
The high court’s ruling [in 2022] that set new standards for evaluating gun laws left open many questions, experts say, resulting in an increasing number of conflicting decisions as lower court judges struggle to figure out how to apply it.
The Supreme Court’s so-called Bruen decision changed the test that lower courts had long used for evaluating challenges to firearm restrictions. Judges should no longer consider whether the law serves public interests like enhancing public safety, the justices said.
Under the Supreme Court’s new test, the government that wants to uphold a gun restriction must look back into history to show it is consistent with the country’s "historical tradition of firearm regulation."
I bolded the relevant part. I think that is one of the "common sense" issues that judges of lower courts are supposed to take into account, but are now instructed not to.
While this is the second recent ruling on firearm rights, this one is particularly notable because it's not overturning a law, but determining whether the ATF was correct in ruling or re-defining a particular accessory as complying or not complying with the intent of an existing law (which I guess can be generally explained as a ban on civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons classed as "machine guns").
Wiki explains:
So that's how that ATF regulation works.
Since pistol braces are accessories defined by an ATF interpretation as to what complies with the National Firearms Act (NFA), I would expect the ban on pistol braces to be challenged (and ruled against) by this court as well in the future. Pistol braces were originally intended for one particular use, but also make it so that individuals can add a buttstock-like device to a short-barreled weapon such as a pistol, making it act more like a rifle with a short barrel (i.e. a more ergonomic rifle for use in confined spaces). Short-barreled rifles are specially regulated by the NFA, but the ATF decided a couple years ago that pistol braces circumvented the intent of regulation of short-barreled rifles. As a result, owners were given a period to become grandfathered-in to the law and then asked to destroy any accessories that had become non-compliant.
(Thanks, mycketforvirrad, for fixing the submission's tags!)
Yeah this whole thing has been a mess. Bump stocks should almost absolutely be banned in my eyes, but at the same time the way they tried to go about it was asking for it to be challenged and shot down (although again this is partly because of our useless congress).
I've always found the SBR/no stocks on anything under X inches (which is why the pistol brace ban exists) thing weird though. IF you're going to allow civilians(hell and local law enforcement) to own guns, they should be accurate so in the rare case of justified use, you don't harm others.
Putting a stock on a gun makes it much easier to aim properly so you hit what you're shooting at. I know the original argument against SBR's for civilians was that it's much more firepower than a handgun and you don't need that, but at the same time a 22/9mm with a stock is probably what most people should reasonably be allowed to own in any sort of close site suburban area. The whole thing is a mess of backwards thinking from all sides just to "win" rather than achieve any logical regulation.
This article doesn't cite sources but I've heard similar things before, that this law accidentally made it in & no one wants to bother fixing it: https://www.forgottenweapons.com/why-are-short-barreled-rifles-actually-regulated-in-the-us/
Today is also the day that Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of a mass shooting in 2018, is being demolished. And a month after the arrest of an Arizona man was arrested while driving across the country to massacre people at a concert venue in Georgia.
The survivors of the Sandy Hook shooting graduated from high school yesterday as well.
I'm just wondering how I didn't even hear about this one. Sigh
While I don't personally think bump stocks should be allowed, I do think the ATF probably overstepped here.
It's odd to hear judges suggesting that "common sense" be the standard here. Nothing about American firearms law is common sense, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you sit on. Politicians are more than happy to argue for common sense or nitpick the law, whichever suits them at the time. But I would expect judges to be a little more nuanced.
I agree that it's an issue of nuance, but here I think the "common sense" term is really just an easy way of expressing that it's an outstanding issue rather than one that's been fully fleshed out in writing either by lawmakers or by courts.
However SCOTUS's ruling in 2022 has caused confusion since then on how to apply existing laws. The article explains:
I bolded the relevant part. I think that is one of the "common sense" issues that judges of lower courts are supposed to take into account, but are now instructed not to.