Supreme Court LIVE: Justices hear arguments challenging ban on gun bump stocks
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2024
- The United States Supreme Court hears a challenge to a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a gun accessory used in a Las Vegas mass shooting that was the deadliest massacre in modern U.S. history. #supremecourt #bumpstocks #news #live
SCOTUS should be asking themselves why didn't Congress in 1934, legislate "rate of fire" instead of the mechanical function of a trigger/sear?
“800 rounds a second or whatever,” what a joke of a justice. Or WHATEVER? The facts of a case are the most important aspect of a case, and you can’t even do something as simple as get that right?
1:07 gattling gun... is not a machine gun.
If he's arguing you have to do a separate action with a bumpstock by applying pressure, then would he not consider a progressive trigger (like a full auto AUG) to be full auto? Because with that you push the trigger a certain distances and it fires semi, but if you push the trigger further it's full auto, that's two separate things. It's a very hollow argument in my opinion.
Bump firing can be done with the belt loop on your pants. Are we going to ban pants?
well they did go after shoestrings at one point, so never say never
My moronic nephew can use a bumpstock but he cannot master the belt loop and he's on meds
the absurdity of these questions is the reason our ATF is still around and gets away with so much. The auto changes the triggers characteristics and application or performance. A bumpstock changes nothing in the function of a trigger nor the firearm. All it allows is that the shooter is able to actual the trigger faster without specialized training. Shows how crazy any of these laws are and why courts need to reject these rules making the legislature act.
So in theory...any government alphabet agency can "interpret" any law on the books to mean anything in order to suit their needs. There's no need for Congress to do their job and create new laws to deal with modern issues.
Not really. They are interpreting the words in the law. The reason we are having a hearing at the Supreme Court level on this is determine whether or not that interpretation is reasonable within the scope of the law. As you saw, both sides are making reasoned arguments on opposing sides.
Shall not infringe, is pretty simple.
The ATF cannot make law. The ATF cannot interpret law.
But that's exactly what the do to ex- felons who already paid their debt to society and are now law-abiding citizens and I don't see the Nra or anyone else coming to their defense.
@@kalijasin a felon should have all rights restored after being released and clearing probation.
@@vonfauthconsulting6695
“Shall Not be infringed”
@@kalijasin yes there are most certainly people who support ex felons having their 2A rights fully restored.
I cannot believe how ignorant Jackson is. 🙄
“Starts a chemical reaction.” Lol. The firearm can be dry fired, and the trigger still functions.
you do kno there is a chemical reaction that happens when a gun is fired
She's not a biologists 😂
moving away from the definition being the mechanical function of the sear to "manipulation by the user" is how they'll ultimately get every firearm banned in the future. the law as it was written, was based on the "mechanical function" of the trigger. this is just an exercise in semantics by people who don't understand the basics of firearms functionality.
Every gun acts the same way.
I am no expert in this area but can the word “Function” equate with Outcome from the subject mechanism.
A Machine gun by definition is a gun that fires bullets in rapid succession. Which is exactly what a bump stock makes happen it just does it from a semi- auto and at a lesser rate.
@@kalijasinThese lawyers will parse your statement by saying the MG discharges bullets and not fires them. Congress only regulated “firing” and thus the rain of bullets is a copious discharge which is outside the purview of the act. These SCOTUS hearings should be mandatory in all undergraduate classes.
@@kalijasin The only definition that matters is the legislative definition. Your definition fails to effectively provide a meaningful distinction between a semi-auto and fully-auto weapon. An attorney (I believe for the government arguing for the ban) stated that a human can operate a semi-auto weapon at a rate of 180 rounds per minute. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't consider that in rapid succession.
Law and there explicit interpretation are what prevent government from growing into an effective dictatorship. This ban came by way of executive order and bureaucratic fiat.
If congress were to pass a law banning bump stocks then this ban would be worth arguing over, but since it did not the decision should be clear and straight forward. The executive branch overstepped their bounds. Any other ruling would basically allow the president or whatever bureaucrat in whatever agency ... just change the interpretation of things and have standing.
@@dipeshlallLawyers twist facts.
@@lizard450 Its the Supreme court that decides whether a law is constitutional or Not.
Death merchant regulation case.
A bump stock is a device that assists in the recoil that resets the disconnector,sear,and hammer.
it has no mechanical connection to sear reset. you can hold the trigger down on SA and it will still close. on Auto, it remains open. that's how it fires multiple rounds. under your def anything that helps to control/modify recoil would make a firearm a MG.
Anyone who claims bumpstocks don't make semi-auto firearms fire at a higher rate or in rapid succession is lying.
Just like an arm brace is a device that transforms a rifle into a pistol.
So it is function...therfore meaning our President has a button that they can push...either way, however many rounds...you state it can hurt someone, several people...our president has codes and then by pressing a button can hurt entire countries. Putting in the codes and pressing a button is a function.
It entirely depends upon the person that uses that FUNCTION.
The fact that this needs to go to the Supreme Court is worrisome.
Fully auto weapons are not banned, just heavily controlled and restricted unless one pays the $200.00 tax to the ATF and await their approval. Some States remain unconstitutional with their laws and since everyone wants to be "Woke" nowadays, numerous unconstitutional statutes and laws are being challenged in court and found in error.
This isn’t true anymore. You can no longer add machine guns to the registry the ATF has due to the Hughes Amendment in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, meaning the amount of machine guns is capped at 186,000ish. You can only buy one of these, but for many thousands of dollars, not a simple $200 tax anymore.
Taxing a right is unconstitutional. The reason they chose to “tax” the purchase of machine guns is because that is an express power they have. As the other commenter pointed out, the prohibition on manufacturing new automatic weapons for civilian sales created a hidden tax that makes purchasing such weapons prohibitively expensive for most people. Since only so many transferable machine guns exist, the vast majority of Americans literally can’t own one, making them effectively banned for the vast majority of people.
"function" is the relationship between input and output. the input here being depressing the trigger. the output being how many bullets are fired as a result of depressing the trigger.
no that's not what they meant when they made that law
@@Sup3rB4dVideosit's literally the definition of the dependence of 1 set/variable to another. physiologically think heart-pumping blood. mathematically set X to set Y. get it?
you put women (and any progressive) on the court and "feelings" will enter the legal discourse.
Unnecessary sexism. Barrett never once mentioned feelings, as an example against your misogyny.