Cargill Carnival
BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 3 weeks ago
Amazing.
Justice Barrett asks about the difference between bump firing and bump stocks
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Justice Jackson says guns with bump stocks can fire 800 rounds a second
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
The government says that a rifle without a bump stock can only shoot about 60 rounds per minute
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Jerry Miculek is laughing.
Justice Jackson asks why the NFA doesn't ban guns that can fire as fast as machine guns. Cargill says because that's not what the law says
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Justice Kagan says that with a bump stock, you can hold the trigger and bullets come out. Cargill says that's incorrect; bump stocks don't alter the trigger at all
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Justice Jackson is asking why the chemical reaction after the trigger is pulled isn't the single function that causes the gun to fire automatically. Like all of Jackson's other arguments, Cargill says that is also incorrect
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) February 28, 2024
Good Lord! So the FedGov is relying not just on the communists on the court, but the general stupidity as well.
|
|
On February 28, 2024 at 5:46 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Good Lord! So the FedGov is relying not just on the communists on the court, but the general stupidity as well.”
That’s not a bug, that’s a feature….
On February 28, 2024 at 6:24 pm, scott s. said:
To be fair, what the supremes and legislators want is probably a performance spec, but that is hard or even impossible so what we have is a design spec. I don’t think it is proper to just infer a performance spec. Certainly nothing in the law can be constructed to read in terms of “possible rounds per second”.
On February 28, 2024 at 10:14 pm, Elmo said:
Justice Jackson says guns with bump stocks can fire 800 rounds a second.
California’s preeminent expert on firearms agrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0
On February 28, 2024 at 10:44 pm, Sisu said:
The 90 minutes were remarkable as the discussions were for the most part two blind “individuals” (don’t want to digress to a discussion of pronouns and gender) arguing over the perceived machine that they “imagine” is in a separate inaccessible room.
I kept wondering have any of the (what I assume are) “female” justices ever seen, held, inspected a firearm, or at least a schematic of a firearm and trigger mechanism design (let alone the variety of designs).
The entire bench should be embarrassed by the mostly mindless banter that occurred today.
Last, Roberts should have kept the presentation and questioning on topic:
“… The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et
seq., defines a “machinegun” as “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.”
26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The statutory definition also
encompasses “any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and
intended, for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun.” Ibid.
A “bump stock” is a device designed and intended to
permit users to convert a semiautomatic rifle so that the
rifle can be fired continuously with a single pull of the
trigger, discharging potentially hundreds of bullets per
minute. In 2018, after a mass shooting in Las Vegas
carried out using bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published an
interpretive rule concluding that bump stocks are
machineguns as defined in Section 5845(b). In the
decision below, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the
ATF rule was unlawful because the statutory definition
of “machinegun” does not encompass bump stocks.
The question presented is as follows:
Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as
defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and
intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun,
i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than
one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger.”
On February 29, 2024 at 9:05 am, kevin said:
Any man waiting for a court to affirm his rights has already forfeited them.
On February 29, 2024 at 11:11 am, george 1 said:
What the controllers are going for is a ruling that says that any firearm capable of being made to bump fire is a machine gun. So just about any semi auto firearm.
They may just be able to get that done.
On March 1, 2024 at 8:41 pm, Reader said:
WOW!!
There is some serious stupid (or is it?) going on in SCOTUS.
These are the Betters??
We.
Are.
Done.
as a nation.