Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump-era bump stock ban | full audio
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 02. 2024
- Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging a ban on bump stocks for firearms implemented during the Trump administration. The ban was put in place in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting at a Las Vegas music festival.
#news #supremecourt #politics
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News CZcams channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...
For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Mrs “I’m not a biologist” Jackson - all of a sudden is an expert in firearms and automatic weapons.
1934 NFA act is unconstitutional and so is 1986 MG ban
Should civilians be allowed to own nuclear weapons and predator drones?
@@stewiegriffin12341 Can you physically keep and bear them?
@@TheSundayShooter If they are small enough, yes. So should civilians be allowed to own them?
@@stewiegriffin12341 The smallest nuclear armaments (e.g. Davy Crocket Weapon System) were decommissioned last century and there is no "small enough" MQ1 Predator to launch without an airfield
@@TheSundayShooter Assuming there *today* exists a small nuclear weapon that is bearable, should civilians be allowed to own it?
How Jackson got on this court with her low intellect is shockin--oh wait, no it's not.
I feel dumber for even listening to these so-called educated people.
At least you had accepted yourself as being dumb from the start before it got worse
@sbradshaw1886 lol. Smart enough to have run circles around both of those lawyers when it comes to firearms.
Reminds me of bullshitting my way through a book report after reading nothing but the back cover summary 😂
It would be nice if they had witnesses that really knew about firearms....this is horrendous testimony.
These aren't witnesses. These are the lawyers for each side.
@@TheMukster And horribly ignorant ones at that.
They’re terrible
9 people who know nothing about guns deciding whether to deny your right to arms
How does banning a bump stocks limit your right too arms? Are there any firearms that would require the use of a bump stock?
@@rhenisnotok8077 A bump stock is an arm, also everything that the NFA prohibits and or regulates are protected arms
So being an expert at firing a gun rapidly is illegal?
Jesus Christ. Can they show the court how the darned thing works? I don't know who is speaking, but she is thinking the bump stock is firing the gun itself????
By including rifles with bump stocks and FRTs as machine guns, the ATF has put machine guns in common use for lawful purposes.
This is stupid!
I feel like Mr. Mitchell missed the most important point is that your finger still has to pull the trigger over and over again on the semi auto firearm. Just because you have some assistance pulling the trigger faster doesn't mean that the gun itself is now a machinegun. For example, if you place your finger on the trigger and I move it for you, faster than you can pull. Am I now a machinegun? Is the gun now a machinegun? How could I, a human, be a machinegun?
I agree but it is somewhat implied, the atfs argument even states that bump firing without a bump stock is not a machine gun.
Most of the questions the judges ask Mitchel are not related to how the trigger functions or how the shooter pulls the trigger. But mostly about the rate of fire and the forward push of the rifle, not giving much of a chance to touch on that.
I don't think it matters much anyway though the judges that rule against them are not ruling based on the text, but on the thought that the nfa regulates machine guns and that high rates of fire should be illegal
Jackson: WRONG. The statute is about the high rate of fire. NO. NO NO.
What in the actual fk?! He said practically 60rpm is a practical limit for people to shoot?! Lies! At least he admitted it’s not a rate of fire issue yet the justices mention it 100 times.
The Judges may have spent too long in NRA free lunches.
Justice Jackson showing her diversity hire level of knowledge as always
Constitution: "Shall not be infringed."
SCOTUS: "How can we help you infringe on the right, today?"
well regulated.
@@stevedolan8095
What do you think they meant by "regulated"?
It's old
Constitution covers the actual weapon, not modifications nor accessories.
@@crypticvyper3092
How is that not an infringement?
So if you build a machine gun and hook it up to a trip wire and someone trips the wire and the gun shoots off a bunch of bullets is it still a machine gun if it wasn't intentional?
Are you kidding ACB, you started your question off with someone built a machine gun...
Dumb.
How does a rifle "accidentally" get hooked up to a tripwire? ?
12:10 what they’re worried about are guns that allow you to fire rapidly without repeated manual actions. If rapid fire was the standard of where you can ban it, that would give you the green light to prohibit semi automatics. Not to mention, a full auto still requires a manual action of continually pressing the trigger
46:00 You don't hold the trigger when shooting with a bump stock. How did he miss that easy answer to her questioning? The bump stock simply transfers the natural recoil of the firearm to throw itself back into one's finger with enough force the press into the trigger once again. Thus the trigger is pulled multiple times, not once. And requires one to maintain the pursuit to fire by keeping their finger in place to allow the trigger to come into contact with it again.
The question is then what is the distinction between a finger pressing the trigger and a trigger pressing the finger as to allow one, but supposedly ban the other when done multiple times in succession?
That’s not how they work, bro. They use the natural recoil to reset the trigger. The push of the non-shooting” hand forward is what pulls the trigger ahead of the normal grip location which sets off the function of the trigger.
This guy lies right off the top.
Will it continue to fire at a higher rate if the hand pushing forward is removed
Lmfao Jerry miculek can fire his semi auto AR-15 without bump firing at over 400rpm lmfao
The macro issue remains with the constitutionality of the NFA. The NFA is not consistent with the second amendment, machine guns were in common use in the 1930’s and still are. One day we will finally learn that firearms are tools that can be used for good and evil, let’s hold evil people accountable. The thought that creating prohibitions for law abiding citizens to compel criminals to follow the laws puts the criminals in a better position to commit their crimes and law abiding citizens more vulnerable.
Incorrect. We all are not allowed to have airplanes and they are not accessible and available to all. Anyone stealing one is still bad and could hurt themselves and others. This should not be a common use item ever. Law abiding should have to take all of the tests, file all of the applications, and pay all of the licensing, it should not be a good guy bad guy kid's game with the law.
@MajICReiki your argument falls flat. You do not have an enumerated right to an airplane, but you do for arms.
@MC-wh6xk but if it it is infringement on my rights to liberty 🤔 hmmm? Should we not all be allowed planes, with 4 hrs safety training, and a participation certificate?
@MajICReiki I'm pretty sure any adult can own a plane if they want, you don't have to be a licensed pilot to buy one.
Jackson's hypo about a function of the trigger being what starts the chemical reaction that causes the explosion to propel a projectile would make all machine guns legal. In that hypothetical the primer or primer anvil (or firing pin) would be the trigger, and even on a machine gun only has one round fired per function.
Jackson is grating to listen to, uninformed, terrible logic and ridiculous arguments.
Taking on the small squabbling issues , instead of hearing the biggest case to ever confront this Nation…
This was the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. A machine gun functions with one pull of the trigger because the internal parts allow the firearm to continue firing until the trigger is released. A bump stock requires the trigger to be actuated every time to fire the weapon.
How is this even controversial? The executive branch cannot make laws on a whim, banning things without a legislative act. The Second Amendment is very clear, shall not be infringed. If you want to ban these things, you are welcome to offer an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.
All firearms laws require a convention of states, or else it is a violation of the constitution, regardless of whether Congress or the executive branch impliments laws/taxes leveraged as rules. Oath breakers for the last century for every representative that passed gun control.
Listened to the whole thing and the bump stock CANNOT fire more than one shot of the trigger if it is held with one hand/arm and hold down the trigger, so the device does not make it different from a semi auto firearm. A machine gun/automatic rifle is held with one hand and and trigger held down it will continue to fire fully automatic until the trigger is released. The defense did okay but kept waiting for him to state how and why the bump stock does not work that way. An easy explanation
It’s all lies for taxes.
@@honesty0 can't tax it if it's banned. They aren't going to adopt these into the NFA.
@@billn911exactly, none of these existed before the gca of 1986. If they are considered a machine gun, you cannot own one even with a tax stamp
A bump stock doesn't have a trigger. Why is that not enough to throw out the rule?
What's inconsistent is common sense. Two key points. "Shall not be infringed" and "tyrannical government." The common sense part is, you would have to be allowed whatever is necessary to stop that government. Hence we according to the men that wrote it, are allowed anything our government has. Period. Now I request a government grant, to get an F-22. You know, for educational purposes.
You still have to use your finger pressure. Without pulling back, it would just push your finger forward. You don't have to pull the trigger you have to use the same pressure though.
What about defence against an aggressive government foreign or domestic?
I think the annoying part about the bump stock ban is that the bump stock has been around for decades but was only used a single time in a mass shooting, which was the LV shooting. And that shooting had high amounts of deaths because everyone was smooshed together by the location. Guns with low rates of fire can have higher casualties than high rates of fire based pretty much on location. The Virginia tech shooting had the highest public mass shooting casualties for a long time until LV and it was basically a guy with two handguns. It doesn't make sense for something (bump stock) to be around for so long, only be used in a bad way one time, and then for us to act as if that something was the problem other than just paranoid fear of it.
People there is no just things as multiple triggers, that would be two safety’s and a trigger. Example mechanical thumb safety, passive grip safety, trigger pull basic semi automatic 1911
The Corrupt Supremes need a lifetime prison gig😅😅😅😂😂
It was function and not pull because the people writing the law had enough knowledge to know that not all "triggers" are pulled on a machine gun. Many machine gun triggers are depressed downward and not pulled. The M2 for example has a butterfly trigger which is depressed downward.
Good afternoon
I can make this simple on a proper m16 when you go from semi auto to full auto what changes in the weapon.
The disconnector is locked and the auto seer functions the hammer
I can take a fully loaded, safety off weapon and by moving the bump stock manually back and forth would not activate the hammer. Trigger is the wrong word for this whole argument. The hammer is the firing mechanism. One trigger pull semi auto gun releases hammer once. One trigger pull the hammer disconnect is locked and the auto seer acts as the trigger cycled by the bolt/slide.
@@joshua3911
Trigger is the word used in the law, though..
@@falseprophet1024correct. The only part that is being changed, or altered in any form is the hammers action, They are arguing over the wrong part.
“ a gun is dropped and goes off the trigger has functioned”. That’s an incorrect statement. When the sig p320 is dropped the trigger doesn’t move the gun hits the ground the trigger doesn’t move, the hammer is released by force from the hammer disconnect. No trigger action took place the autoseer reengages the hammer lock the hammer is locked hence all 15 rounds don’t spit out the dropped sig.
Jerry Miculek can fire a semi automatic handgun at 240 rounds per minute. He doesn’t use a bump stick. The rate of fire does not define a machine gun. One does not need a bump stock to bump fire a firearm at a higher rate of fire. A bump stock also does not alter the semi automatic trigger. The bump stock is a device that helps a person control their firearm to more effectively bump their trigger.
IV8888 did a video years ago racing Jerry with a bumpstock, it was CLOSE
Thats a very lowball rpm for Jerry too, his fastest splits put his rpm at over 400, I'd say average pro 3 gunners are over 170 rpm. Like how the dude is trying to redefine what a trigger is lol
@@oohyah7I hope that the NFA gets nicked soon. There needs to be a lawsuit in Texas against the NFA
@@igotyoubeat I'm frothing at the mouth for it, that dude who made the auto key cards could've appealed and challenged the nfa and gca, especially because that case was post bruen
@@oohyah7only time will tell; unfortunately the federal court system is slow moving….
Every single question that every justice has about the mechanics both physical and bio are answered by explaining what eccentric, concentric and isometric forces are and how the pertain to the situation. Comparing it to, for example, a bench press would be wonderful.
They all want to but they're afraid to.
I believe, even tho 6-3 ratio, it'll be decided 5-4 though I don't know which way.
I believe on this one Alito and Robert's may be swayed, just by questions asked.
Tho I'm often wrong with my SCOTUS insights.
Distracts from having no common sense
The sheer number of times the various justices stated "I don't understand" tells me their ruling should not change anything.
Maybe I'm not understanding the argument of Mr. Mitchell, but it's almost like he argued against his own argument. They picked apart his argument. Once again, I may be misunderstanding. His argument to support the rule was that when machine guns were outlawed, they couldn't think far enough into the future to outlaw something that did not exist. Ok well that should still be legislated, not a rule put in place by non-elected
Bureaucracts. Rules cannot cover a deficiency in the law. Rule making is subject to the capricious whims of ideologies. It cannot happen.
So, if you had a shooter with an amputated arm, they have one functional limb, could they fire 500 rounds in a minute with a bump stock equipped rifle? No. They could not. A person with a single limb could fire 500 rounds per minute from a machine gun.
Crap, Mitchell really missed a couple of easy wins
The hypothetical arguments sotomayor kept harping on ignore the fact that the critical distinction is the difference in the interaction of the trigger and the sear surface of the hammer between a machine gun and a bump stock attached to a semi-automatic firearm. It has nothing to do with how many buttons exist. If, for example, the trigger moves once, comes to a stop, and never moves again, and only 1 round is fired, it is NOT and can never be a machine gun. The disconnector in a semi-auto firearm, including one equipped with a bump stock, mechanically interlock the hammer and prevent it from firing a second round until the trigger is caused to move from its fixed position of rest at the rear of trigger travel and allowed by the shooter to move forward, and then the trigger is pulled again by a new initiation of the firing sequence when the shooter pulls the forend forward again. Separate actuations of the trigger occur for each shot. No bump stock equipped semi-auto firearm fires more than one shot per function of the trigger. Thus it is not a machinegun.
When a Medical Device that is regulated has a component that is an accessory attached to it to function for the "intended user" it is then considered a Medical Device and regulated. Likewise with a Bump stock once attached to function for the intended user it becomes part of the Gun and thus under the Second Amendment. E.g., it's DEFACTO part of the assembly of the Gun to fulfill it's intended use and function for the user or a defacto part of the assembly of the gun and thus under the second Amendment can't be banned but well regulated. Works this way for Medical devices. However Medical devices can be banned because they are not under the second Amendment or completely regulated not well regulated..key difference
This is comical the lady who can't identify what makes a woman a woman is deciding on what makes a trigger a trigger
Apparently, she is a chemist since somehow, a bump stock requires a single chemical reaction 😂. Partisan clowns are taking up seats on what is supposed to be the most qualified court in our country.
First of all every justice on that bench knows guns. So if you are asking questions about something they already know, is a grift on the Americans rights to not have these weapons legalized. And to have them restricted is for the best of society as a whole. This is the most ridiculous argument and debate I've ever heard. But that's what we've created in America. An institution for sale to the highest bidder, that controls our societal laws, all while being so removed from ordinary people's lives and experiences. The rich truly bamboozled citizens yet again.
Bad moring
They are just screwing around because they don’t want to rule on the rediculas immunity case!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Nakkid
Wow smart aleck remarks do not make someone look smart.
Trump can't ban nobody stock if that's what is happening. When did trump by somebody stock with his own personal money which is not tax payers money. He doesn't own taxpayers money is what I mean.
Some of the Supreme Gorilla Thugdges are bakkid
Atf is losing this one
I don’t know. I don’t trust the courts to make the right decision
The younger the better
Slug is a Trump
Thomas: "NRA, Thanks for the 'speaking fee'."
Lmao. NRA okayed the bump stock ban, which is another reason most gun owners hate the NRA. I find it funny that people pretend all those speaking engagements affect how the justices rule as if they weren't going to rule the same way. Sotomayor btw does plenty of speaking engagements with liberal organizations too. Let me ask, name a single vote you think would have changed by Thomas or Sotomayor if they didn't get all these "problematic" gifts and speaking engagements. You'll find none. Thomas was always going to rule in favor of guns no matter what. Sotomayor was always going to rule against them.
At 1:07:59, Jonathan Mitchel, supporting overturning bump stock ban, responded to a question by Justice Alito by suggesting that bump stocks could be useful to those with handicaps or lack of manual dexterity. That was one of the craziest statements made today and it was quickly challenged by Justice Sotomayor. If it walks, smells and looks like a duck.....you know the rest. This should not be thought of as rocket science. If one action by a person, combined with the skill involved with continuing to firmly hold that weapon, results in hundreds of rounds a minute coming out of the barrel, the weapon is a machine gun. Remember KISS.
Yeah, who cares what the law actually says when we can pretend it says what we want.. /s..
Congress could have banned fast-firing weapons, but didnt..
A bumpstock is not itself a firearm and is not protected under the Second Amendment. Nor does a ban on bumpstocks infringe on anyone's ability to possess or bare arms.
Yet a bumpstock is being defined by the ATF as a firearm in and of itself
Dictator Trump runs the show cause he a dictator
@@DireAvenger001incorrect, ATF is classifying a bump stock as amodification to a weapon, and modifications are not covered under 2A, nor are accessories.
@@crypticvyper3092 no, mere possession of a bumpstock is regarded as unlawful possession of a machine gun. That would make sense if they we’re judging this thorough constructive intent, so both possession of a semi auto + a bumpstock. But they are regarding the bumpstock itself as a machine gun conversion device, which under federal law would regulate it as a firearm in and of itself
Edit: For example, lightning links being regarded as machine guns, even without a semi auto to attach it to
If it's not a firearm and not protected under 2a then the ATF has zero authority to regulate it. Period
Just gonna throw this out there: remember the Route 91 harvest music festival? If that isn’t grounds to keep bump stocks out of human hands then we are truly doomed.
Okay. That's not the argument here. The argument is not whether they should be legal. The argument is whether a single appointed official can ban something on his own.
You realize that guy was a millionaire with no criminal record, right? He could have bought a dozen actual automatic rifles and still been a millionaire. Only difference is he would have been more accurate and there would have been a stack of paper work with the rifles.
Remember the waukesha parade we should ban vehicles, roads, and parades. Let’s ban Christmas too while we’re at it.
Sometimes when I listen to the Justices questions, I ask my self what is so Supreme about the Supreme Court. This argument to me is simple, the ATF is a Bureaucrat ran agency, this organization's meat and potatoes is the Chevron doctrine which in my layman's point of view is unconstitutional because of the constitutional setup of the United States Government: The Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive (the Congress, the Justice and the Executive), Congress writes the laws, the President either signs or Veto's the legislation and the Courts interpret the laws to insure they are Constitutional. No where in the Constitutions does it mention the ATF's ability to interpret, modify or publish regulations/laws the can over night make law abiding American instant felons. The ATF is an antiquated, rouge agency that who responsibilities should be turned over to the FBI.
Slug is a Trump