Supreme Court bumpstock discussion

[N4KVE]

Right now Tuesday night @10:30 I’m scanning through the TV channels, & on C-SPAN the supreme Court judges are discussing the Bump Stock. Belt loops, string, how it works etc are all being discussed. Very interesting to hear them discuss it. This discussion took place 6/14/24. GARY.

[N4KVE]

Phrases used many times were function of trigger vs pull of trigger, comparing bump stock to Akins accelerator, ROF of bump stock vs full auto, & others. Forced reset triggers were also mentioned, but that’ll be another case for another day. They only broadcasted 90 minutes, & the discussion was not over when the show ended. In the end they voted along party lines. Interesting to listen to as there was no video, just audio. GARY.

[Miami_JBT]

The core of the case was executive order vs congressional action. SCOTUS basically ruled that the President exceeded his authority (since they were going to kill Chevron Deference after this case) and couldn't order BATFE to change the rules on the fly. That's a job for Congress and they have to pass legislation and have it signed into law by the President. During oral arguments and in the written opinion, SCOTUS said that in the end, they weren't looking if a bumpstock was a MG or not and if Congress passed legislation declaring such. Then that was a whole different case and discussion.

Now, the case did go into the argument of what is and isn't a MG under the current laws. And that was to further establish that Chevron Deference is wrong. But they didn't go into the issue if the MG ban was in of itself constitutional or not.

[N4KVE]

The show was on for only 90 minutes. When the show started, they were already in discussion, & when it ended, it was like turning off a movie in the middle. But the Dem judges were more interested in ROF between bumpstock, & M-16. The expert said almost the same ROF. The Rep judges were more interested in constitutional law. GARY

[Miami_JBT]

The show was on for only 90 minutes. When the show started, they were already in discussion, & when it ended, it was like turning off a movie in the middle. But the Dem judges were more interested in ROF between bumpstock, & M-16. The expert said almost the same ROF. The Rep judges were more interested in constitutional law. GARY

You can listen to the oral argument on SCOUTS' website. They went off on tangents about magic boxes that shoot, etc.... The liberal judges were trying to debate the case on the merits of the NFA. The conservative judges were debating the merits of the case on the constitutionality of Chevron Deference and can the President issue an EO to change the law. The debate about how and where MGs stand wasn't germane to the case.

The only thing the debating did, it gave you a peak behind the veil on where SCOTUS stands on MGs.