Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

melm00se

(5,161 posts)
24. ***sigh***
Fri Jun 14, 2024, 05:46 PM
Jun 2024

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.

Recommendations

6 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So how much of a kickback did he get for this ruling? nt mitch96 Jun 2024 #1
yes. Think. Again. Jun 2024 #6
Thomas will gladly sacrifice American lives for a nice vacation. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #28
Dumbfounded. Karma13612 Jun 2024 #2
The Idi Amin of the Supreme Court understands nothing, except this: peppertree Jun 2024 #13
Thanks edhopper Jun 2024 #3
Founding fathers did not want Americans killed with military weapons. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #30
Sadly, gunners are orgasmic over the opinion. Kingofalldems Jun 2024 #4
Post removed Post removed Jun 2024 #5
What is your goal here? Do you think your arguments will persuade people this is okay? Nevilledog Jun 2024 #8
My goal here is to point out incorrect information. yagotme Jun 2024 #9
I can form my decisions based on the fact bump stocks should be illegal. Nevilledog Jun 2024 #15
The details are what makes laws good or bad. yagotme Jun 2024 #18
The court's role does not include what "should be" legal or illegal FBaggins Jun 2024 #21
This guy has it wrong? dpibel Jun 2024 #12
Fact checks: yagotme Jun 2024 #17
Some of what you say is incoherent dpibel Jun 2024 #41
Well, I'll try again: yagotme Jun 2024 #43
"If an AR-15 with a bump stock is a machine gun" FBaggins Jun 2024 #22
Just functions like one dpibel Jun 2024 #42
Well... no FBaggins Jun 2024 #46
We're the envy of the world. Uh huh. Marcus IM Jun 2024 #7
Opinion dedicated to Las Vegas shooter? moondust Jun 2024 #10
Someone ask Thomas pwb Jun 2024 #11
I don't even know what a rapid loading magazine is TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #37
You figured it out. pwb Jun 2024 #44
As long as Harlan is happy Blue Idaho Jun 2024 #14
Why? DET Jun 2024 #16
INFURIATING dickthegrouch Jun 2024 #19
Are we now advocating the Bible sarisataka Jun 2024 #25
Post removed Post removed Jun 2024 #20
Would like to Rebl2 Jun 2024 #23
***sigh*** melm00se Jun 2024 #24
As is apparent from this thread, the decision is defensible 0rganism Jun 2024 #26
Great post TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #38
The US Supreme Court has blood on its hands. Irish_Dem Jun 2024 #27
Once again, legalese becomes employed to B.See Jun 2024 #29
And yet, DU has at least one very busy gun aficionado defending Clarence today... Hekate Jun 2024 #31
Shouldn't DU defend the rule of law? TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #39
Weak n/t kcr Jun 2024 #45
The SAD part is, one day soon this SC will see the BLOODY MASSACRE bluestarone Jun 2024 #32
Rejoicing on the wrong side! IzzaNuDay Jun 2024 #33
He'll have rafts of sea-lions defending his decision Torchlight Jun 2024 #34
Yeah jimfields33 Jun 2024 #36
Where in the Constitution does an Orginalist see reference to gun ACCESSORIES? PeaceWave Jun 2024 #35
You clearly didn't read the opinion TexasDem69 Jun 2024 #40
Couldn't be that the NRA has paid for a pricey vacation. yellowcanine Jun 2024 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clarence Thomas' Opinion ...»Reply #24