• theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      By saying it applied to something that specifically does not meet the very clear definition of the law? “One function of the trigger” isn’t ambiguous in any way shape or form. They are not legally machine guns under the law regardless of what they can achieve by means other than sustained full automatic fire.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You keep taking like that but in the case of bump stocks that’s exactly what the ATF and all the reviewing courts found.

        If the initial pull of the trigger causes the second one, it’s a machine gun, even if it is just using recoil to bump the trigger back again.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Judges lie all the time to justify trampling on the second amendment. The cases are not settled, the ban has been thrown out in two separate circuits already. With Bruen being a specific message to lower courts to actually apply the 2A it is unlikely the ban will survive much longer.