Supreme Court strikes down federal ban on bump stocks

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on bump stock accessories on firearms


The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a bump stock does not transform a firearm into an automatic weapon, striking down a federal rule that banned bump stocks.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Congress has long restricted access to "'machinegun,'" a category of firearms defined by the ability to "shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger."

"Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—con- verts the rifle into a 'machinegun.' We hold that it does not," he wrote.






But dont' expect any Commie States to turn around their bull####.

And of course the Commie Scum on the Court, dissented.
 

WingsOfGold

Well-Known Member
ah you got out of VA ...
Yeah, wasn't my idea but I'm having fun. Good food, free 60's 70's music, stupid golf cart. watching people have fun. No deer season 365 days a year.
Larry Mondello invited me down, wanted me to teach him how to do it. 😇
 

22AcaciaAve

Well-Known Member
You can't say leftists and commies were responsible for this legislation. President Trump not only supported it, but lobbied for it. I don't know much about bump stocks and really could care less. Trump supported making them illegal and that is a good part of why the legislation passed.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
You can't say leftists and commies were responsible for this legislation. President Trump not only supported it, but lobbied for it. I don't know much about bump stocks and really could care less. Trump supported making them illegal and that is a good part of why the legislation passed.

That's sort of the point. It wasnt legislation, it was regulation. This was the Court saying not to use regulation in place of legislation.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
🔥 The AP ran another reassuring legal story yesterday headlined, “Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight.” One of President Trump’s most controversial moves was to ban so-called “bump stocks,” which are a frame for rifles that absorb recoil, making it easier to fire more quickly.

image 10.png

First, federal officials declared that the Las Vegas shooter used bump stocks to carry out his still-mysterious mass shooting. In response, the Trump Administration issued ATF regulations making the accessories illegal by redefining bump-stock-equipped rifles as machine guns. At the time, the regulatory move relieved irresistible political pressure on Congress to “do something” about gun control in the wake of the Vegas massacre.

But in yesterday’s terrific 6-3 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled the DOJ was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns. According to the Court, despite the ATF’s attempted re-definition, they’re not machine guns, since each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.

The Court also noted over a decade of previous ATF decisions that bump stocks weren’t automatic weapons. So.

The Court’s ruling was more about reining in Executive Powers, rather than narrowing gun control limits. Although the case was not principally about Second Amendment rights, it was nevertheless encouraging. What the Court found was the ATF overreached its authority by using semantic tactics to expand Congress’ 1930’s machine guns regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the three dissenting justices had no problem with the ATF’s wordplay. They seem willing to trade a little semantic sleight of hand here and there for more safety. ATF Director Steve Dettelbach perfectly framed that narrative, when he justified the department’s tricky regulation explaining that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”


The majority didn’t agree or disagree with that. The Court held that if bump stocks do “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety,” then the legislative branch — Congress — must address the risk, not some executive agency.

In other words, the Court didn’t opine on whether a bump stock ban would be Constitutional or not. If Congress does pass a law banning bump stocks, the way remains clear for another lawsuit challenging that ruling on Second Amendment grounds.

One of the most urgent things the pandemic proved is how desperately executive powers need pruning, and the Court’s recent decisions seem to be doing just that. Progress.





 
Top