cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15645865

If the Supreme Court rules that bump stocks aren’t machine guns later this summer, it could quickly open an unfettered marketplace of newer, more powerful rapid-fire devices.

The Trump administration, in a rare break from gun rights groups, quickly banned bump stocks after the 2017 mass shooting at a Las Vegas concert that was the deadliest in U.S. history. In the ensuing years, gun rights groups challenged the underlying rationale that bump stocks are effectively machine guns — culminating in a legal fight now before the Supreme Court.

  • big_slap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    bump stocks were not a thing when the definition of a machine gun was formally defined.

    we have got to introduce a system where we update definitions and laws that are clearly out-of-date, but we all know why this hasn’t happened yet…

    • mctoasterson
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is a “system” to update statutory definitions - It has to pass Congress. The Executive cannot unilaterally do this. It is a feature, not a bug.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah only that’s not true in practice as the atfe changes their own rules all the time.

        • commandar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Rules-making agencies have to conform to the the statute when issuing rules. They can interpret within the bounds defined by the law, but they aren’t allowed to invent regulation wholesale.

          That’s kind of the point of this suit. The ATF’s rule appears to conflict with the statutory text; if the court decides that to be the case, then the statute takes precedent and the rule gets invalidated.