The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments regarding Cargill, focusing on the definition of a machine gun and the function of triggers. Justice Jackson questions the intent of Congress in 1934 and the 1986 Hughes amendment. There are concerns that the Court lacks understanding of how semiautomatic and automatic firearms operate, which could complicate the decision-making process. Justice Brown Jackson's arguments about the trigger's function have raised questions, with suggestions of altering the statute.
Justice Brown Jackson making some really weird arguments about what "function of the trigger" could be. She says it could be the action that causes a chemical reaction that causes a round to fire. Although, this seems to just get back to a intention of the statute argument.
My initial reactions from Cargill: except for Justice Alito, the Court does not seem to understand the basic mechanics of how semiautomatic and automatic firearms operate. I think this is a hard case to decide correctly without that knowledge.
Justice Jackson keeps asking about what Congress intended in 1934 about prohibiting machineguns. She is conflating the 1986 Hughes amendment to the 1934 NFA which DID NOT PROHIBIT machineguns, but only regulated them through registration and taxing.
#2A #Cargill #bumpstocks. Justice Brown Jackson trying to change the text of the statute.
Re the Cargill arguments right now, the trouble for the government attorney is that the definition of machine gun centers around function of the trigger, not anything that makes the gun shoot fast.