Action opportunity- DU can save lives

[sarisataka]

Many of us are upset by the SCOTUS ruling on banning bump stocks. Unfortunately their ruling is correct.

The current legal definition of a machinegun is clear.

"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

Bump stocks use multiple functions of the trigger. But this can be rectified.

If we all contact our Congresscritters, have our friends do so we may be able to get bump stocks defined as machinegun parts by updating the definition.

Suggested change

"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 or repeatedly activating the trigger function without separate, distinct actions by the operator"

We are all online. All each of us has to do is open a tab to our Senators and Representatives, send them a request for legislation to change the definition. If anyone is ambitious, write an old fashioned snailmail letter.

To quote JFK- "If not us, who? If not now, when?"


ETA> this would also make "burst triggers" machinegun parts. Such devices are attached to a rifle or pistol and allow firing 3-5 rounds at a time. They do so with a toothed arrangement that transfers a single pull of the burst trigger to multiple activations of the original trigger. Perfectly legal under current law.

[Think. Again.]

1. I agree with the sentiment if the OP...

...but I disagree with the concept that the ruling is correct.

Bumpstocks shoot multiple bullets with a single pull of the trigger.

[sarisataka]

2. You have gone right to the heart of the problem.

A single pull of the trigger (an operator action) causes multiple activations of the trigger (mechanicalaction). Legal under the current definition because the law only addresses the mechanical action; it is silent on operator action.

True these multishot devices are against the spirit of the law, but they follow the letter of the law

[Ocelot II]

3. Not exactly. Here's an illustration of how they work:

https://nyti.ms/43NEi6b The statutory definition of a machine gun is “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 technicality SCOTUS focused on was the fact that the bump stock causes the trigger to be pulled faster than a human could pull it, but the gun doesn't fire by "a single function of the trigger." Interestingly, it was TFG's administration that banned them in the first place. It will take an act of Congress to change the definition of machine gun to include the mechanism of a bump stock.

[Think. Again.]

4. the function of the trigger...

Is the single pull.

[Ocelot II]

5. But the statute addresses just the mechanism, not the action of the operator.

That's the problem, and it's why the definition needs to be changed.

[Think. Again.]

6. No, the statute directly addresses the "manual" operation.

[Ocelot II]

7. My point was that SCOTUS focused on a very narrow and technical interpretation

of the words of the statute. A common-sense interpretation would have upheld the rule, but they decided that only the mechanical function was controlling. I'm not saying I agreed with it, only that this is how they arrived at the decision; and that the remedy is a statutory adjustment to the definition of machine gun.

[Think. Again.]

8. The remedy is to have...

...have sensible, responsible, and honest adults on the supreme court.

Without that, they will continue to dismantle every reasonable law that is necessary for a healthy, functioning society.

[sarisataka]

9. Six years ago, right after the Las Vegas massacre, an ATF agent confirmed

A rifle with a bump stock is not a machinegun. It has only become an issue today.

I have illustrated the solution but cursing the darkness is far more popular.

[yagotme]

10. I don't think your suggestion will pass muster,

because part of the operation of the bump stock is for the operator to push forward on the handguard, which, IMHO, would negate, or at least provide an argument for, the "separate, distinct actions" change. A bump stock is pretty much a 2-handed deal, for it to work properly. A machine gun, only need 1. Well, maybe 2 to stabilize, but just 1 to work it.

ETA: Burst triggers, AFAIK, ARE full auto regulated. Anything more than 1 shot fills the bill.

[sarisataka]

11. I believe it could be argued

That both the continuous trigger pull and forward pressure are singular actions. Considering how lawyers think however, I could also see one focusing on those being separate actions.

Perhaps the wording should be minimized to "fires more than one round with a single trigger pull". Interestingly it might make certain double barrel shotguns illegal.

[yagotme]

12. Your new wording is the same thing they argued this time.

About what constitutes a "single" pull. It's going to be difficult to encode, and I really don't see the real need to ban them. They're worse in the accuracy department, shoot faster, but fewer hits than semi, and shoot more slowly and inaccurately than full auto. It's primarily a toy, one that was badly misused once, and now "everyone" wants it gone, even though the thousands that have been made/sold haven't done a thing to anybody. May as well ban alcohol too, for all the good it will do for deaths, overall.

[sarisataka]

13. The difference would be the wording would be in the law

The SCOTUS ruling is correct as long as the definition of trigger function is the determining factor. Somehow the action of the operator must be included.

Unfortunately it appears most are of the view 'I don't care what the law says, I know what it means' It doesn't take much thought to see how that can go sideways when applied to other laws.

[yagotme]

14. I totally agree with the body of your post.

That's why I keep arguing that the law needs to be specific, and say specific things, and the court needs to abide by it. "Seeing" things that aren't there will beckon our downfall.