Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Justice Amy Coney Barrett Presses Lawyer On The Definition Of A Machine Gun In Bump Stock Ban Case" video.

@Sarah-im3lp Court decisions can (and typically are) appealed to higher courts, up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States...which is where the audio clip in this video comes from. If everything is ultimately decided in the courts anyway, the ATF is, in fact, redundant.
4
Exactly. It's not as though Congress is unaware of this situation. If it behooved them to do so, they would expand the definition of an automatic weapon in a lawful manner. They have not. Bump stocks do not make a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm, by the legal definition outlined by Congress.
3
@dankbreh9013 Cali and New York are busy spending a whole lot of time in court, bribing judges to play games to avoif the "text, history, and tradition" part of Bruen...and they're failing. Did you really think that decision would undo decades of unconstitutional laws overnight? Come on. It takes years to undo such things. We've only just begun.
1
@shanoukgaming6763 Which is a separate discussion, entirely.
1
@tracesmith3572 Clearly not, or other conversations wouldn't currently be happening. While I agree that the second amendment nullifies all of this, that opinion is of little consequence when we're discussing actual case being heard in actual courtrooms to determine their actual legal merits.
1