SCOTUS is AMAZINGLY IGNORANT of Guns/Constitution at Bump Stock Hearing

The famous gunships. I had a friend who was in the military and I’ve never heard them fire. But he said, it sounds like it’s so rapid that you don’t hear the individual shots. You just hear like a tone. And he said, it sounds like it’s moaning because I guess because the Doppler effect is like this growl that is out there like some lion in the sky or something.

So I thought, so how does that compare to the ac 130 gunship? Gatlin gun? And that shoots 6000 rounds per minute. If this thing was shooting 800 rounds a second, that would be 48,000 rounds per minute that the Supreme Court justices think a bump stock turns your semiautomatic rifle into that. This is even dumber than the stuff coming out of Gemini. Some people put some no nothings in Supreme Court justices robes and put them there in real life.

Not in a picture, but in real life. That’s what they did. So this is like eight times. That’s eight times faster. Eight times faster than the ac 130 gunship. Gatlin guns. So that’s just for starters. And they got into the details of this stuff. But fortunately, somebody pulled it back and talked about, actually the principles involved here about this bump stock stuff, oral arguments about whether or not the federal government was right to ban bump stocks on claims that assistive casing transforms semiautomatic rifles into machine guns.

Transformed in the sense of the imagination of the bureaucrats and the court systems, but not in reality, by a single function of the trigger. That is what is defined as something is fully automatic, that it continues to fire by a single function of the trigger. But that clear language is incomprehensible to somebody who is so blinded by bias. And so they believe that this converts the weapon into a machine gun.

But that’s the definition of a machine gun, and it doesn’t. Instead, oral arguments were garland versus Cargill. Again, it’s Michael Cargill from central Texas. Gunworks there in Austin quickly devolved into confusing hypotheticals and debates that stemmed from the justice’s incredibly limited understanding of how guns work. Again, this is from the federalist the modifiers often do help shooters attain a faster rate of fire but still require multiple trigger functions to get multiple shots.

There’s still one shot per trigger pull. The key differences between automatic and semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks were largely lost on the justices, especially Brown, Jackson and Kagan, who repeatedly insisted bump stock equipped guns can fire up to 800 rounds a second. They, along with the government’s legal team, repeated that lie that semiautomatic rifles with modifiers could fire hundreds of shots. As Kagan put it, she said, a torrent, a torrent of bullets.

Cargill lawyer Jonathan Mitchell corrected them multiple times. Kagan asked, why would even a person with arthritis think they needed to shoot 400 to 700 or 800 rounds of ammunition under any circumstance? If you don’t let a person without arthritis do that, who’s talking about bump stocks are not for people with arthritis? Is she even confusing the pistol brace, which is not necessarily for people with arthritis. It’s for people, many of them military veterans, who have some disability, and it helps them to be able to shoot.

They’re just hallucinating, just like artificial intelligence. This is not a device for somebody with arthritis. This is kind of a joke device that the last words of a redneck, hey, y’all, watch this. That type of thing. It’s a gimmick. It’s one of the reasons why they were able to establish this legal precedent by banning this gimmick. But it’s a very important legal precedent to do gun control by the executive branch.

Never been done before. They don’t shoot 400 to 700 rounds because the magazine only goes up to 50, he said. Rapid fire is not the test under the statute. All right? It doesn’t say how fast it can fire. It says that you pull the trigger only once and it keeps firing. So you’re still going to have to change the magazine after every round, he said. Well, not after every round, but anyway.

Mitchell also repeatedly called out Jackson’s false assertion that firing a gun with a bump stock only requires one trigger movement. He says it is factually incorrect to say that a function of the trigger automatically starts some chain reaction that propels multiple bullets from the gun. A function of the trigger fires one shot. Then the shooter must take additional manual action, since, in his words, the bump stock, he said, is neither necessary nor sufficient for the firing of the weapon.

The federal government’s attempt to outlaw bump stocks based on the provision about the single function of the trigger does not apply, Kagan later admitted. Well, I don’t know about these things textualism, though, is not inconsistent with common sense. She said, well, this isn’t common sense. This is nonsense. This is untactual. It’s illogical. It’s just them reading in their biased opinions. They don’t like guns and they don’t care if we have a God given right recognized by the Constitution to have self defense.

It’s just the biased opinion of a political appointee who knows nothing about what she’s talking about. She said, at some point, you have to apply a little bit of common sense to the way that you read a statute. Oh, okay. So you’re not going to try to determine what the law actually says. You’re just going to override it with your subjective common sense. You don’t care objectively what the law says.

They want to write the law. That’s what this is really about, always has been. When they say, well, you know, Roe v. Wade is the law of land. How could that possibly be? Supreme Court is not the one who writes the law, that’s the legislature. But they did legislate from the bench, which is wrong, always wrong. She said, when you read a statute, you have to understand what the statute comprehends is a weapon that fires a multitude of shots with a single human action, whether it is continuous pressure on a conventional machine gun pulling the trigger, or a continuous pressure on one of these devices on the barrel.

Ignorant, ignorant and proud of it. And as I point out in this federalist article, this came after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting where the bump stock was allegedly, allegedly used. They haven’t proved anything about that. That is one of the most shooting events that has the most questions surrounding it of any that I’ve looked at, quite frankly. And that was what was picked by Trump. To put forward this precedent.

Congress moved to legislatively ban bump stocks shortly after the shooting, but the ATF beat it to the punch. And it wasn’t just the ATF folks, remember, it was Trump. But you have to be very, very powerful on background checks. Don’t be shy. And don’t worry about bump stock. We’re getting rid of it. I mean, you don’t have to complicate the bill by adding another two paragraphs. We’re getting rid of it.

I’ll do that myself because I’m able to. Fortunately, we’re able to do that without going through Congress. Fortunately, we’re able to do that without going through Congress. Fortunately, we’re able to do that without paying any attention to the constitution of the bill. Rights. Yeah. So people like Michael Cargill at Central Texas gunworks, by the way, if you’re in Texas, support him. He’s a good guy, really one of the good guys out there.

Cargill was forced to destroy or to surrender lawfully acquired non mechanical bump stocks to the government or face felony charges. And again, folks, as many people pointed out at the time, you can get the same effect by tying your gun, hooking it up to your belt. People demonstrated that I’ve never tried, that ammunition is just too expensive. And when you start spraying this stuff around and shooting it really fast, that’s never been anything that’s interested me.

It’s just too expensive and getting more expensive all the time. Everything about the bump. So here’s the lawyer for Cargill. He says everything about the bump firing process is manual. And again, you can do it with your belt. And I joked about that at the time. I said, so is the ATF going to go around confiscating belts from people? The pants are falling down everywhere. There is no automated device, such as a spring or a motor, in any of Mr.

Cargill’s non mechanical bump stocks. The process depends entirely on human effort and exertion, as the shooter must continually and repeatedly thrust the force stock of the rifle forward with his non shooting hand while simultaneously maintaining backward pressure on the weapon with his shooting hand. Again, it’s a gimmick thing. The divided 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that the bump stock ban was unconstitutional and no longer enforceable by the ATF.

Two years later, last year, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals similarly held that the ATF did not have the authority to change bump stocks classification. We’ve had two times that. Appeals courts, the Fifth and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals have both said that you can’t do gun control by executive order. You can’t do gun control with the deep swamp like Trump wanted to do. He gave gun control power to the swamp folks.

He didn’t drain anything. He didn’t pull back the bureaucracy from anything. Instead, he gave it new powers. Michael Cargill’s lawyer, Mitchell, said, the problem for the government is that they’re not able to change the nature of the trigger that currently exists on a semiautomatic rifle simply by adding a bump stock, which is nothing more than a casing that allows the rifle to slide back and forth. The trigger is exactly the same as what it was before, and the function of the trigger is exactly the same as what it was before.

The ATF’s rush to rulemaking did not seem to sit well with Justice Gorsuch he noted that, quote, through many administrations, even the Obama administration preceding Trump, the government took the position that these bump stocks are not machine guns. You see, Trump did something here that even Obama did not do with the Second Amendment, giving power to the unconstitutional ATF. There is no authority in the Constitution to have an Alphabet agency that infringes on our God given right to keep and bear arms.

And how has that worked out? Well, go back and look at Ruby Ridge, look at Waco, look at the history of the ATF. When you start creating these unconstitutional bureaucracies and giving them unlimited power and Trump making them even more powerful. This is regulation without representation, but they kill people too, just to expand their empire, he said. And then you’ve adopted an interpretive rule, not even a legislative rule saying otherwise that would render a quarter of a million and a half million people federal felons.

This is Gorsuch talking, not even through an APA process that they could challenge. You’re not even going to put up a rulemaking process that people can comment on. I’m sorry, but to allow the legislative state to tax us, to regulate us, and they’re never accountable to us, even with this APA process and comments on the rules, I’m sorry, that is un american unconstitutional. It is a path to tyranny.

And we don’t even have to imagine that it will happen. It has happened over and over again. So they don’t even put it through this APA process. He said that they could challenge, but then they are subject to ten years in federal prison. And the only way that they can challenge it is if they’re prosecuted. Gorsuch warned that a government led prosecution over ATF’s rushed bump stock rule.

They did it at warp speed, just like all this other stuff, right? Could easily deprive law abiding Americans of guns in the future. That’s what Trump said in that longer, quote, 18 I can do the bump stock then, but we can get rid of entire classes of guns. He was telling Diane Feinstein, Feinstein, the other person who’s sitting on his side is John Cornyn. I can tell you that that Texas senator, if he replaces Mitch McConnell, that’s not an improvement, folks.

It may actually be even worse. The people are talking about replacing Mitch McConnell may be even worse because they’re younger and more energetic and probably even more status than Mitch McConnell. But yeah, Cornyn was on one side of him and Diane Frankenstein was on the other. So he said it could easily deprive people of guns in the future as well. As a lot of other rights, even including the right to vote.

Yeah, see, he’s getting to the principles involved here, not getting. It’s interesting to look at how ignorant these people are, willfully ignorant. You would think maybe they’re going to rule on something like this. They might bother to look up some of the terms and look at what they’re actually talking about. But no, they’re not interested in that. They’re just going to legislate on their bias. They’re going to legislate from the bench on their political bias because that’s why they’re there.

They’re biased political appointees. The U. S’s principal deputy solicitor general, this is the government lawyer who’s actually arguing before the Supreme Court, claimed that the government sought to, quote, maximize public notice about the rule change through publication in the Federal Register. So we published it in the Federal Register. Listen to what Gorsuch said sarcastically, because of course people will sit down and read the Federal register. That’s what they do in the evening for fun, gun owners across the country crack it open next to the fire and just read it.

Well, maybe if you’ve got a gun store, you better do that or they’re going to shut you down because they’ve got zero tolerance of anything that is afoul of their demands. This regulation without representation. This same solicitor general Fletcher confirmed to Justice Alito that the Americans who possessed bump stocks between 2018 and the decision of the Fifth Circuit court to say this is not legitimate. He said they would be eligible for prosecution by the government.

He says that could happen. And then Justice Kavanaugh also jumped in and said if someone is unaware of the bump stock rule, they could be convicted. And he reaffirmed that they could and that he might prosecute them. So I would say as we look at this, we got both Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito seem to be skeptical. You can bet that Thomas is going to be skeptical. He’s grounded on that.

And then, of course, on the other side, we have the justices who think that a bump stock turns this into something that fires more bullets, a torrent of bullets, more so than an ac 130 gunship, eight times faster. And then, so it really comes down to what are Barrett and Robert’s going to need to do? And we really don’t know. But see, this, right, like so many others, hinges on the ignorance and the bias of political appointees sitting there at the Supreme Court.

Is that really what you want? I don’t want know who checks the Supreme Court, right? Some of these people say, well, the Supreme Court’s got to be there to check these other branches of government. Who checks them? Evidently nobody. Nobody. That’s what I mean by judicial supremacy. The David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you’ve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it.

Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread favour. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask, take your vaccine, don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight Show. .

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.