Posted: 14 June 2024 at 8:17pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
One of the better laws introduced by the Trump administration falls by the wayside. The Supreme Court ruling is hard to read, because it is so disingenuous.
eg. 'Congress defined a machinegun by what happens “automatically” by a single function of the trigger. Simply pressing and holding the trigger down on a fully automatic rifle is not manual input in addition to a trigger’s function. By contrast, pushing forward on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not part of functioning the trigger.'
It's quite mealy-mouthed...
Congress introduced the act with the aim of banning dangerous weapons that could fire automatically. The Supreme Court doesn't care that the bump stocks allow the effect to be the same, they are entirely interested, apparently, with the trigger mechanism and how much manual input goes into firing.
As Sottomayer says in her dissent: the 'reading fixates on a firearm’s internal mechanics while ignoring the human act on the trigger referenced by the statute.'
The Supreme Court's ruling seems to achieve a kind of double-think which says the bump stock, an accessory that is sold on its ability to automate the firing process to be indistinguishable in effect from a machine gun, does not technically automate the firing process and is therefore OK by us, even though indistinguishable in effect from a machine gun.
|