Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on bump stocks on guns

essentialsaltes said:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court. The court’s liberal wing, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

Trump had pushed for the ban in response to a 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people at an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas. Bump stocks allow a shooter to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute.

The ban was challenged by a Texas gun store owner, Michael Cargill, who purchased two of the devices in 2018, turned them over to the government after the prohibition was implemented and then promptly sued to get them back. The federal rule made possession of a bump stock a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court. The court’s liberal wing, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

Trump had pushed for the ban in response to a 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people at an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas. Bump stocks allow a shooter to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute.

The ban was challenged by a Texas gun store owner, Michael Cargill, who purchased two of the devices in 2018, turned them over to the government after the prohibition was implemented and then promptly sued to get them back. The federal rule made possession of a bump stock a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Click to expand...

Sif said:

I find this unfortunate. I am pro-Second Amendment (not going to debate or argue with anyone on that issue); however, I find the "bump stock" and completely useless and dangerous (to the shooter and everyone around them) item. It's as idiotic as the "pistol bayonet".

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

I do have to say I'm a bit instantly suspicious of a government agency reclassifying something like this without any actual change in the law.

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

Theoretically, all that is required to re-ban them is to adjust the law itself (interestingly, one of the justices in the majority--Alito--has a concurring opinion practically asking congress to do that).

Click to expand...

JSRG said:

Well, this wasn't a Second Amendment question at all. The question at hand was whether already-existing laws allowed for a bump stock ban; more specifically, it was all about the rather technical question of whether a semiautomatic firearm with a bump stock qualified as a machine gun, which would allow for banning them under current law. Previously they weren't considered machine guns, but then in 2018 (without any change in the law) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reclassified them as machine guns and banned them. The case was all about whether they were allowed to do that under the law, therefore turning the entire question on whether a semiautomatic firearm with a bump stock met the definition of machinegun in the law. Ordinarily this would be a case people would pay little attention to due to the rather dull analysis involved (we're talking about a case where the debate is over things like the exact meaning of "a single function of the trigger"), but it concerns a hot button controversy so it gets attention.

Policy-wise I have no problem with banning them, but in terms of the legal issue I'll have to read the opinions in more detail to really weigh in the proper interpretation of the law. I do have to say I'm a bit instantly suspicious of a government agency reclassifying something like this without any actual change in the law.

As noted, this isn't a constitutional question, but a highly technical one concerning a law. Theoretically, all that is required to re-ban them is to adjust the law itself (interestingly, one of the justices in the majority--Alito--has a concurring opinion practically asking congress to do that).

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

Indeed, the Congress should act....and I'm curious as to which bills, if any, were raised and debated prior to the ATF issuing the ban?

Click to expand...

Senate GOP Blocks Bump Stock Ban—After Supreme Court Tosses Trump-Era Policy

The legislation would have reversed the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling last week that lifted a Trump-era ban on bump stocks.

www.forbes.com

SavedByGrace3 said:

I have an AR-15 and see no need for a bump stock.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

Look harder. It’s there. In the Constitution.

Click to expand...

SavedByGrace3 said:

Might be. I am just saying I do not see the benefit. Why shoot 16 rounds when it only takes one?

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

When the jackbooted thugs come, they may come in waves and you’ll want to lay down some suppressing fire.

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

..and the Zombie Apocalypse, gotta be ready for that, too.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

Look harder. It’s there. In the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Fantine said:

I gave never owned a gun of any kind and find the Suprwme Court decision--and the Senate Republicans' actions horrific.

This type of gun was not in use in 1781. What in the world makes you think that the drafters of the Constitution would have approved it?
Perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment specifying what types of guns are excluded---based on the overwhelming majority of American views (without which it would never pass.) Even people who loathe guns (like me) would vote for one with the necessary exclusions, believing it's better than nothing.

Click to expand...

SavedByGrace3 said:

Might be. I am just saying I do not see the benefit. Why shoot 16 rounds when it only takes one?

Click to expand...