Clarence Thomas' Opinion Legalizing Bump Stocks Is Indefensible

[Nevilledog]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-opinions-clarence-thomas-bump-stocks-gun-fetishist.html

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority carved a huge loophole into the federal prohibition against machine guns on Friday, striking down a bump stock ban first enacted in 2018 by the Trump administration. Its 6–3 decision allows civilians to convert AR-15–style rifles into automatic weapons that can fire at a rate of 400–800 rounds per minute. One might hope a ruling that stands to inflict so much carnage would, at least, be indisputably compelled by law. It is not. Far from it: To reach this result, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the court tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in dissent, the supermajority flouts the “ordinary meaning” of the law, adopting an “artificially narrow” interpretation that will have “deadly consequences.” This Supreme Court will be squarely at fault for the next mass shooting enabled by a legal bump stock.

Friday’s decision, Garland v. Cargill, is not a Second Amendment case. The plaintiffs do not (yet) argue that the Constitution guarantees a right to own bump stocks. Rather, they claim that the Trump administration stretched existing law too far when it outlawed bump stocks following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The gunman committed that massacre with the assistance of a bump stock, allowing him to murder 60 people in 10 minutes from 490 yards away, the deadliest single-gunman mass shooting in U.S. history. To use this device, a gunman attaches it to his AR-15, then holds his finger on the trigger and leans forward to maintain pressure on the bump stock. A semiautomatic requires the shooter to pull the trigger to fire each round. When done correctly, by contrast, “bump firing” can then unleash a spray of bullets without repeated pulls of the trigger, and at the rate of an automatic weapon. This barrage is audible in many videos of the Las Vegas shooting; victims were mowed down in rapid succession because the bump stock enabled nonstop fire.

For years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had been monitoring these devices; the agency found some unlawful, depending on their precise mechanisms, but did not take a formal position overall. The Las Vegas shooting prompted ATF to conclude that bump stocks transform semiautomatic rifles into machine guns, rendering them illegal under a long-standing federal statute. That’s because this law bans “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively” for “converting a weapon into a machinegun.” And a “machinegun” is defined as any firearm that fires “automatically” by “a single function of the trigger.” After extensive deliberation, ATF found that bump stock–equipped rifles do exactly that.

Now the Supreme Court has decided that it understands firearms better than the ATF. Thomas’ majority opinion reads like the fevered work of a gun fetishist, complete with diagrams and even a GIF. The justice, who worships at the altar of the firearm, plainly relished the opportunity to depict the inner workings of these cherished tools of slaughter. (It’s no surprise that he borrowed the images from the avidly pro-gun Firearms Policy Foundation.) To reach his preferred result, Thomas falsely accused ATF of taking the “position” that bump stocks were legal, then “abruptly” reversing course after the Las Vegas shooting. This account is dead wrong: ATF took a careful, case-by-case view of different bump stock–like devices as gunmakers developed them, deeming some permissible and others unlawful. The gun industry pushed these devices into the mainstream by deceiving ATF about their purpose; in one case, for instance, a manufacturer won approval from the agency by claiming a bump stock was designed to accommodate people with limited hand strength—then turned around and marketed it as the next best thing to a machine gun.

*snip*

[mitch96]

1. So how much of a kickback did he get for this ruling? nt

[Think. Again.]

6. yes.

[Irish_Dem]

28. Thomas will gladly sacrifice American lives for a nice vacation.

[Karma13612]

2. Dumbfounded.

When will it end?

[peppertree]

13. The Idi Amin of the Supreme Court understands nothing, except this:

That the real reason for GOP voters' assault weapon fixation (beside teeny weenies), is that they believe they'll have to "use'em against the tyrannical gummint run by Soros, the Jews - and globalist lib'ruls who eat pizza with baby meat toppings!"

(or something along those lines)

One their favorite bumper stickers related to this issue is: "2nd Amendment - Just in Case"

The "just in case," of course, refers to that very fear - never mind that they're constantly bellowing for Trump to impose "Marshall Law" against his opponents.

He's simply pandering to that sentiment (besides any bribes he may be collecting).

[edhopper]

3. Thanks

I have read too many "legal experts" here who say the ruling is justified.

[Irish_Dem]

30. Founding fathers did not want Americans killed with military weapons.

American civilians, including children, gunned down as they go about their daily business.

And for gun violence to be the leading cause of death for American children.

The legal scholars have their heads directly up their asses.

[Kingofalldems]

4. Sadly, gunners are orgasmic over the opinion.

All threads on this overrun with pro Thomas replies.

[Nevilledog]

8. What is your goal here? Do you think your arguments will persuade people this is okay?

[yagotme]

9. My goal here is to point out incorrect information.

And, there's a lot. Would you be comfortable forming an opinion or making a decision on incorrect/incomplete information?

[Nevilledog]

15. I can form my decisions based on the fact bump stocks should be illegal.

Your "corrections" don't change that. I'm not interested in nitpicking the details.

Have a good day.

[yagotme]

18. The details are what makes laws good or bad.

A law with little/incorrect detail is a bad law. If you think bump stocks "should" be illegal, that's fine by me. Congress needs to pass a DETAILED law to correct that. The reason so many things go to USSC is that there's some detail that was overlooked, or someone wants to push the boundary on some detail. Have a good one.

[FBaggins]

21. The court's role does not include what "should be" legal or illegal

It's on what is legal/illegal.

Majority Leader Schumer made clear to the former administration that executive action was insufficient.

Do you think he was trying to gaslight you?

[dpibel]

12. This guy has it wrong?

In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens. This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true). Of course, this prohibition did not apply to FFLs (certain gun dealers / manufacturers) nor law enforcement.

So there is, in fact, a prohibition of ownership of machine guns made after 1986 without special licensing (that is, you can't walk in off the street and buy a machine gun, but you can do that with a semiautomatic).

If an AR-15 with a bump stock is a machine gun, then allowing the civilian purchase of them carves a big hole in that prohibition, now don't it?

According to another article I found on a quick google, machine guns are legal in 37 states. Most of us would not characterize that as "nearly every state."

If you're willing to stretch the truth twice in such a short post, why should I take you seriously?

[yagotme]

17. Fact checks:

So there is, in fact, a prohibition of ownership of machine guns made after 1986 without special licensing (that is, you can't walk in off the street and buy a machine gun, but you can do that with a semiautomatic)

#1. "Made after 1986 without special licensing". So, it's not prohibited, you just need a special license. And, pre-86 models are legal to own by civilians.
#2. "you can't walk in off the street and buy a machine gun,". Well, you can't, exactly, but if you live in an area that allows it, you CAN walk in, and start the process to buy one.

If an AR-15 with a bump stock is a machine gun, then allowing the civilian purchase of them carves a big hole in that prohibition,

#3. An AR-15, with a bump stock, is technically NOT a machine gun. Per the law written, and now the USSC.

According to another article I found on a quick google, machine guns are legal in 37 states.

#4. Illinois is on that list. You CAN own a machine gun in IL, if you go through the process of becoming a dealer in Class III weapons. So, technically, you CAN own one in IL. I bet some of those other states have similar laws. Enough to bring my estimate into the "nearly" category. ("Quick" Google searches aren't always what they're cracked up to be.)

Two of your count, four of mine. Who needs to believe who???

[dpibel]

41. Some of what you say is incoherent

But I'll do my best to respond. Last round, though, because I try to stay away from discussions of religion. My bad for getting into this one.

#1 It's prohibited to the vast majority of citizens. Unlike AR-style rifles, which can be easily modified to fire at rates similar to machine guns. If you really think the whole issue is whether "you" pull the trigger multiple times, rill rill fast, or the bump stock allows you to pull the trigger once and have bullets keep coming out without further intervention of your finger, you are talking about how many angels can gavotte on the head of a pin.

#2 That's just silly. You think it's the same thing to go into a gun store and emerge with a weapon that can be made functionally fully automatic and to go to a federal agency and start an application process? I think you must be joking.

#3 Well, at least one Supreme Court Justice thinks that this is just sophistry and if it delivers rounds like a duck, and requires the same effort to shoot as a duck, then it might very well be a duck. If you think this was a slam-dunk, no-duh interpretation of statutory language then maybe you should wonder why the lower courts got it so wrong and your hero Mr. Justice Thomas had to go through so many gyrations to reach this perfectly clear outcome.

#4 What list? What are you even talking about? Technically you can own one? Come on.

"Two of your count, four of mine." Can you give me that in English?

As I said, it's silly to debate religion with true believers. Words change meanings. Oracular pronuciamentos take on deep meaning. Knock yourself out, sport! Whatever gets you through the night.

[yagotme]

43. Well, I'll try again:

It's prohibited to the vast majority of citizens.

You said yourself, 37 states allow it. IL, my state, doesn't allow direct civilian ownership, but if you get a dealer license for Class III weapons (machine guns, etc.), you CAN own one in IL. So, 37 isn't a solid number, it's actually a bit higher, if you count the Class III dealers.

without further intervention of your finger,

Your finger intervenes. It has to. Otherwise, it won't work. You have to have forward pressure on the forearm also, to make it work. Bump stocks are a 2-handed operation, to get the rifle to recoil and reset properly.

emerge with a weapon that can be made functionally fully automatic

Bump stocks DO NOT make a weapon functionally fully automatic. That's why we have the judgement we have today.

if it delivers rounds like a duck, and requires the same effort to shoot as a duck, then it might very well be a duck

Well, 2 things wrong here, so it must not be a duck. Full auto is faster than bump fire. Full auto, you merely have to hold the trigger back, and the weapon does ALL the work. Bump stock, you have to hold it a certain way, allow the recoil to work a certain way, and apply a certain, specified amount of forward pressure to the forearm. If you tweak any of these things too far out of spec, then it doesn't work. Bump stocks take some practice, full auto doesn't.

maybe you should wonder why the lower courts got it so wrong

Sometimes courts get things wrong, sometimes right, and when 2 lower courts disagree, it's up to the USSC to make a final judgement. That's how our system works, like it or not.

What list? What are you even talking about? Technically you can own one? Come on

List of states that allow ownership of MG's. See above for my IL explanation.

"Two of your count, four of mine." Can you give me that in English?

Sure. You counted 2 "errors" in my post, and stated why should you believe anything I have to say, and I counted 4 in yours, with the same response you gave me.

[FBaggins]

22. "If an AR-15 with a bump stock is a machine gun"

But that's the point.

It isn't.

[dpibel]

42. Just functions like one

Doesn't it?

[FBaggins]

46. Well... no

It certainly makes it fire faster… though not as fast as a truly automatic weapon… and it’s far less usable or accurate.

IOW - an AR-15 with a bump stock does not become an M-16.

None of which is to say that the stocks should not be illegal.

[Marcus IM]

7. We're the envy of the world. Uh huh.

When my family visits me in Florida, they can't wait to get home to Cuba where they are safe.

They would watch the Spanish language news programs and shake their heads in horror at the numbers of gun crimes and murders.

I feel safer in Cuba when I go to visit.

[moondust]

10. Opinion dedicated to Las Vegas shooter?

Ask Clarence.

[pwb]

11. Someone ask Thomas

where rapid loading magazines are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? Mr Constitutionalist.

[TexasDem69]

37. I don't even know what a rapid loading magazine is

Is it a magazine that holds multiple rounds?

[pwb]

44. You figured it out.

.

[Blue Idaho]

14. As long as Harlan is happy

Who are we to complain?

[DET]

16. Why?

The only purpose of a machine gun (which this effectively is) is mass murder. The only people who can take delight in this decision are the NRA, mass killers, and insecure men who think machine guns make them ‘manly’. Why are we allowing this? Why are we allowing men to take away women’s rights and minority rights while enabling men to commit domestic violence and mass murder (‘Freedom!’)? There has to be some way to stop this insanity.

[dickthegrouch]

19. INFURIATING

Why are they so unwilling to protect us?

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

What’s so hard to understand?

[sarisataka]

25. Are we now advocating the Bible

As the basis for US law? Maybe we should require schools to teach and display the Ten Commandments

[Rebl2]

23. Would like to

say something about the Supreme Court justices, but I know it’s set to keep my mouth closed.

[melm00se]

24. ***sigh***

This ruling can be distilled down to 2 very simple statements:

The law says what it says, not what people wish it said.

and

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The law defines a machine gun states

The term “machinegun” means 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

1 pull of the trigger fires more than 1 bullet.

The ATF's attempt to change this definition exceeded their power and usurped the power of Congress.

If you give it some thought, I am pretty sure you could see how a ruling that allowed the ATF to alter a legislative definition could be equally applied to other future situations with which you might not agree.

[0rganism]

26. As is apparent from this thread, the decision is defensible

It's gross and invites future mass murder using the means in question, but remains consistent with the law as written, consequences be damned. "Technically correct" is still correct.

While I sympathize far more with the dissent, the decision isn't some wide outlier. Impossible as it seems, congress has to do a better job with its lawmaking to enable effective regulatory response.

[TexasDem69]

38. Great post

The Supreme Court didn’t get this wrong, and Congress can still ban bump stocks. It likely won’t, because Republicans are scared of enacting any law that might remotely threaten the individual right to keep and bear firearms.

[Irish_Dem]

27. The US Supreme Court has blood on its hands.

Aiding and abetting mass murderers.

Leading cause of death for American children is gun violence.

The Supreme Court apparently approves of this.

[B.See]

29. Once again, legalese becomes employed to

DO THE WRONG THING.

The left keep bringing knives, while the right bring guns...

with bumpstocks.

[Hekate]

31. And yet, DU has at least one very busy gun aficionado defending Clarence today...

He has time to gunsplain the minutia of gunz to us all

[TexasDem69]

39. Shouldn't DU defend the rule of law?

[kcr]

45. Weak n/t

[bluestarone]

32. The SAD part is, one day soon this SC will see the BLOODY MASSACRE

THEY CAUSED!!

[IzzaNuDay]

33. Rejoicing on the wrong side!

this SCOTUS decision is absurd. I’m sure the 2A ammosexual crowd is rejoicing. Those justices voting to end the ban have a short memory. However, for the victims of these mass shooters, and their families, they suffer eternal grief!

[Torchlight]

34. He'll have rafts of sea-lions defending his decision

Giving the self-righteous ample opportunity to show themselves, providing us a greater opportunity dismiss the annoying sanctimony out of hand.

[jimfields33]

36. Yeah

[PeaceWave]

35. Where in the Constitution does an Orginalist see reference to gun ACCESSORIES?

The next shoe to drop will be rendering unconstitutional any ban on suppressors - which are currently illegal in 8 states, all of them Democratic (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island). Then will come legalization of fully automatic machine guns - which will be marketed as high volume sport hunting rifles or some such nonsense. Where will the insanity end?

[TexasDem69]

40. You clearly didn't read the opinion

Because the Court did not say that the 2d Amendment protected a right to own bumpstocks. The opinion hardly even mentions the 2d Amendment

[yellowcanine]

47. Couldn't be that the NRA has paid for a pricey vacation.

Nah that can't be it.