The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, not bump stocks. If the same gun functions without a bump stock then there is no infringement on the 2nd amendment.
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
96 points (94.4% liked)
News
23310 readers
3599 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Terrible take. Could be used to justify banning literally all guns except flintlock pistols. You can accomplish the same thing as a bump stock with a piece of string. This is what leads to this nonsense
It gets even dumber than that, as there are exceptions (and exceptions to the exception) for almost every pictured example. The top SBR Glock could be still a pistol if the rear protruding portion was just a tube to attach an approved brace design. The AOW Glock pictured below that could have a vertical attachment up front as long as that attachment held a spare magazine in it, because by definition and precedent, a spare mag holder cannot be a forward grip, even though it can serve the function of being gripped.
What do you personally need a bump stock for?
I don't. Good thing rights aren't based on a personal need
Good that we got it figured out that you personally don't need a bump stock. Now, who does need a bump stock?
I see you missed the point entirely. Typical
Why are you avoiding the question?
Because it's completely irrelevant
I don't need a bump stock, I need for federal agencies not to overstep Congress, which is what this is all about. Most folks don't care about bump stocks, its just a gimmick.
This suit is about MUCH more than bump stocks and has implications across the entire federal government.
No one overstepped Congress. Congress banned machine guns, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, one of whose jobs includes regulating firearms, classified bump stocks as something that can turn a semi-auto weapon into an auto weapon and enforced the decision of Congress.
If Congress wants you to have bump stocks then Congress can pass a law saying so and there will be no question.
What do you personally need a computer for?
Participating in almost all aspects of modern society.
To ask people why they need bump stocks, silly.
The summary is a horrible summation of the article, which itself is a lackluster summation of the actual issue.
What is actually being litigated is the fact that definitions in enabling legislation, such as the NFA, have meaning. Words like "machine gun" have statutory definitions that the President does not have the authority to selectively reinterpret via executive order, omission, or any other channel or method. If Congress would like the definition of "machine gun" to include semi-auto rifles equipped with these particular pieces of plastic, they can amend the NFA.
Same goes for the brace rule and the frame and receiver rule. The ATF does not have legislative authority and the Courts have a duty to check their power in this area.