[browserman]

It needs to be kept in mind that this ruling is not really about so-called “gun rights” but part of the Right’s concerted attack on the ability of the federal government to tie the hands of private actors in any capacity. The goal is to gum up the works such that any dispute over any interpretation of technical language must come before a panel of (ideally right-wing, FedSoc) judges, rather than the technical experts vested by Congress with the power to make such interpretations.

[legitster]

Of, if you actually read the opinion of the court in it's own words:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act."

[jfengel]

That's a very popular tactic for the court.

"Well, they could just pass a law."

No, they can't. The process was designed to obstruct laws being written. That was intended to protect minority interests, but it means that even large majorities cannot pass laws.

And when, after superhuman effort, a law does finally get passed, the Court has nearly unlimited ability to say "No, that's not good enough, either."

The argument is meant to suggest, "Well, all you need is a simple majority. If you can't get that then clearly this is the correct outcome".

Except that it's not a simple majority. You have to pass the House and the Senate, by a filibuster-proof margin, and the President. And that's without taking into account the ways gerrymandering and the way the Senate favors small states. So it's a deception to suggest that we don't get such a law because a majority doesn't want it.

So that opinion is a lie. The Congress can't act, and they know it. That doesn't make their decision wrong, but it does imply that they feel the need to misdirect about it.

[Meph504]

The problem is the process you describe is the same for all laws, if that system doesn't work, fuck it, appoint a head of agency that has the current leaderships opinion to reinterpret the meaning of a policy, and change the policy without requiring the law making body to play any role in that.

If we set that sort of precedence, and the wrong people get appointed to say the department of health, or the department of education then suddenly what is legal and what isn't shifts quickly, and with no recourse.

I don't care about bump stocks, they can make them illegal tomorrow, but it should be done through the same legal channels that our government is based on. And not as a work around because they couldn't get it done in the framework that is agreed upon.

[mytailorisrich]

The drafting of the law is always important and the normal way to settle ambiguity and disputes on interpretation is to go to court.

Nothing conspirational there...

[injb]

+1 the OP hasn't offered anything resembling evidence for their position anyway. It's worth noting that 3 of the supreme court justices who voted to lift this ban were appointed by the president who ordered the ban. Is this an example of the famous "4D chess" we've been hearing about?

[ffmDaddy]

The ATF are far from "technical experts." Did you not see the recent video of the ATF's Firearms Ammunition Technology Division Chief was unable to disassemble a Glock pistol? That's like a 4 second operation.