Court Ruling on Machinegun Possession

[Andy_Ross]

A hand cranked Gatling gun isn't an automatic weapon.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, but some people want to own a steam train, or any of a thousand other weird things they have no use for. Some would spend the same money on an artwork like a statue, and that doesn't even do anything.

I think I get what you're saying, which is there's a different type of worry about why a person wants that particular thing, and that's the worry that wanting to possess it might mean they fantasize about using it for its intended purpose.

But their wanting to own weird stuff that I can't imagine wanting doesn't in itself provide much of an argument for banning people from spending their money as they please.

False equivalency. "A steam train and a thousand other weird things they have no use for" are in no way a comparison to a machine gun that literally has no use other than to kill people at a high rate. It can't even be sanely argued to be a hunting gun or for self-protection.

Is "Banning people from spending their money as they please" an argument for allowing people to buy and own 'weird stuff' like chemical and biological weapons?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm not suggesting that's not a good argument. My point was only that that is a different argument from "I can't imagine why anyone would want to own one".

 

[HansMustermann]

A hand cranked Gatling gun isn't an automatic weapon.

Indeed. Which is why you can buy and own one with no problems, regardless of the rate of fire.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not suggesting that's not a good argument.

Double negative. But I get what you're saying there.

My point was only that that is a different argument from "I can't imagine why anyone would want to own one".

I can certainly imagine reasons why someone would want to own one; None of them good or healthy. I find America's love affair with guns sick and pathetic.

 

[Disbelief]

Funnily enough, drop that to something more like .50, and you actually CAN legally own a Gatling gun. At least as long as it's crank operated.

I can't hand crank 3900+ rounds per minute though. Need that to get those elusive squirrels.

 

[Ranb]

This might be true*. If it is, it is an argument in favor of continuing a ban on automatic weapons.

MG are not banned in most states, but are restricted in the country.

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

How many are there, compared to, say, AR-15s?

 

[Thermal]

MG are not banned in most states, but are restricted in the country.

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

Ya and people aren't frequently blugeoned with Faberge Eggs either. But get them lowered to the price of a mass produced hammer and I'll bet you see some not at all surprising new stats.
.
Machine guns are not used in killings for two reasons: they are hard for criminals to acquire,and are insanely expensive. If this nifty new court ruling gets traction and the MachineGun sections tossed, those conditions will not exist any more. Then machine gun aficionados can get t-shirts printed up that say "my ED compensator is worth more than your child's life".

 

[thaiboxerken]

MG are not banned in most states, but are restricted in the country.

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

I don't think anyone has used nuclear arms to commit murder in the USA either....

 

[TragicMonkey]

So, if the recent (feels like a long time ago, doesn't it?) shooter who got Trump's ear had had one of these superior weapons would the outcome have been a trifle more serious?

 

[sarge]

MG are not banned in most states, but are restricted in the country.

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

You do realize that the lack of mass murders by machine guns is due solely to the relative difficulty in acquiring them, yes? A bump stock* turned an AR15 into an automatic weapon (don’t quibble. It fired at a rate of 9 rounds a second), allowing a gunman to fire 1000 rds and injure or kill 800 people in a 10 minute span. It’s the worst mass shooting in US history, and it would be a regular event if machine guns were easier to acquire.



*bump stocks were logically and reasonably illegal until the current crop of crazies on the SCOTUS overturned the ban.

 

[sarge]

So, if the recent (feels like a long time ago, doesn't it?) shooter who got Trump's ear had had one of these superior weapons would the outcome have been a trifle more serious?

If the shooter was competent, the rifle he used would have been adequate. To your specific question though, yes. An automatic weapon would have significantly increased the shooters chances of success.

 

[a_unique_person]

If the shooter was competent, the rifle he used would have been adequate. To your specific question though, yes. An automatic weapon would have significantly increased the shooters chances of success.

Since he was after one particular person, maybe not. If his aim was to kill or injure as many people as possible, then yes.

 

[Ranb]

You do realize that the lack of mass murders by machine guns is due solely to the relative difficulty in acquiring them, yes? A bump stock* turned an AR15 into an automatic weapon (don’t quibble. It fired at a rate of 9 rounds a second), allowing a gunman to fire 1000 rds and injure or kill 800 people in a 10 minute span. It’s the worst mass shooting in US history, and it would be a regular event if machine guns were easier to acquire.

What was the reason for the lack of MG mass shootings prior to the FOPA and internet sales that drove up the prices?

*bump stocks were logically and reasonably illegal until the current crop of crazies on the SCOTUS overturned the ban.

Spring loaded bump stocks (invented in 2002) were only illegal after 2006. The other bump stocks (invented in 2008?) were only illegal from 2019 to 2024.

 

[Ranb]

So, if the recent (feels like a long time ago, doesn't it?) shooter who got Trump's ear had had one of these superior weapons would the outcome have been a trifle more serious?

Probably. The outcome would have been far more serious is he was a capable marksman, was willing to modify the ar-15 to full auto, bump fire it or shoot from a concealed position.

 

[HansMustermann]

I can't hand crank 3900+ rounds per minute though. Need that to get those elusive squirrels.

Oh you absolutely can. I think you misunderstand what is it there that makes it legal.

It's NOT whether the crank is the sole source of power. After all, a semi-auto AK still has the gas piston to do the actual reloading.

What makes it be not an automatic weapon legally, is that you have to keep interacting with the firing mechanism for it to shoot the next round and the next and so on. In that case, a crank. Put a ratchet with as many teeth as you want to move the trigger X times per rotation, and thus shoot X rounds per rotation, and it becomes legal, because technically you had to do another bit of motion to fire it.

So yeah, you can do something like need another 10° rotation to shoot the next round, and get cranking

 

[Dr. Keith]

Our Originalist Supreme Court will quickly realize that there was no right to own a machine gun at the time of the founding fathers. That’s what principled legal review looks like.

 

[Andy_Ross]

MG are not banned in most states, but are restricted in the country.

I have yet to see any proof that a registered civilian owned machine gun has been used to commit murder in the USA.

Wait until there is a flood of cheap select fire ARs and AKs on the market.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Walmart sells guns now. What is wrong with Walmart adding an SOT to their FFL and selling NFA firearms?

There is nothing wrong with the average Joe who can own any other gun and wants to own a machine gun. The average Joe gun owner can just do that now if they live in a state that allows them and willing to pay the higher price.

What is wrong is that the US is admitting that the rule of law has no remit within its borders and that the only rule is dog eat dog.