Twaz the way it was always going to go. There is very specific wording for what is a machine gun, and a bump stock did not meet it.
The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas said a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
While I have not followed this case or read this ruling, bolded section would appear to be true (maybe, I can think of reasons that it could be seen differently). However, that doesn’t mean that bump stocks are legal. It just means that the case before the court was to decide whether a bump stock turned a semiauto into a “machine gun.”
It would be elementary to make bump stocks illegal, because bump stocks are not firearms. Making bump stocks illegal wouldn’t cross the Second Amendment.
Bump stocks allow for the trigger to be activated multiple times by a mechanjcal device with a single (human) pull of the trigger. The person is not pulling the trigger multiple times, even though the trigger is being moved multiple times.
I know the whole thing is pedantic legalese, but it is like saying mechanically activating a trigger rapidly with a motor activated with a single button press would be legal.
.
In that scenario the button is the trigger. Trigger is being used not to describe a curved piece of metal you put your finger on but the input device. The oral arguments had a lot around that issue.See the reply below
.
You’re correct went back and reread it:
On weapons with these standard trigger mechanisms, the phrase “function of the trigger” means the physical trigger movement required to shoot the firearm. Pg. 7
Although it sounds like there maybe be edge cases where specially designed firearms are treated differently if they lack a traditional mechanism.
.
I wonder how these arguments are going to go someday when we have weapons that can just emit a field that instantly gives people cancer or vibrates their hearts to death or erases a person’s memory. The MAGAs will all argue that is their right to leave out beacons that covers a certain radius and will just run around chuckling “you triggered? you mad bro? you got sudden bone cancer or an exploded heart bro? can’t remember your kids? cry more ahahaha” and Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will say of course these are fine, erasing peoples minds and having them drop to the ground when they encounter certain frequencies are just what the founding fathers intended (but keep those things a long fucking way away from us, of course)
This case wasn’t about rights it was about administrative policy and legislation. They seemed to actually be subtlely nudging for Congress to act in the opinion.
.
As a counterpoint to your well reasoned argument, you could also easily say constitutional organizists want to strip back any equality or progress our society has made via the courts. They do this by weaponizing the fact that we have a broken legislature. To achieve their goals of stripping freedom and rights from the “outgroups” all they have to do is be explicitly literal when it suits them, ignoring all intent of a law, and then the outgroups will be powerless to actually regain those rights, effectively legislating our nation from the bench.
When a law that helps people that they dont like comes before them, then they can suddenly “guess at intent” and “give standing to anyone.” A clear example of this is when they struck down Biden 400B student loan forgiveness. The law itself gave the executive incredibly wide powers, and Biden worked entirely in them to enact that forgiveness. He followed the “originalist” interpretation, but suddenly all these originalsist jusges had questions about “greater fairness” and “was this really in the intent of the law” when it says in effect “the executive can do what the fuck they want.” They even let a state just “get standing” by claiming one of its agencies would have had standing if it sued. The agency did not in anyway sue. That’s how bad they wanted to not be origionalists when it suited them.
.
The argument of originalists is very specifically that progress shouldn’t be made via the courts in the first place.
That is what they say, but for some reason the outcome tends to be the absolute worst interpretation of words taken out of the context of when they were written and ignoring centuries of precedent. They also tend to throw out the laws that are written in response to their rulings.
Maybe we should evaluate their honesty based on their actions and not what they say their intent is.
.
