Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks

[cigaretteman]

The Supreme Court struck down on Friday a ban on bump stocks enacted by the Trump administration after a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.
By a vote of 6 to 3, with the court splitting along ideological lines, the justices found that the Trump administration had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device, an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a speed rivaling that of a machine gun.
The decision is a forceful rejection of one of the government’s few steps to address gun violence, particularly as legislative efforts have stalled in Congress.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, finding that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, with the court’s two other liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining her.
Under the ban, possession or sale of bump stocks could lead to prison time.
Although the case centers on firearms, it is not a Second Amendment challenge. Rather, it is one of several cases this term seeking to undercut the power of administrative agencies.
The challenger was Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner in Texas, backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, an advocacy group with financial ties to Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes. The organization primarily targets what it considers unlawful uses of administrative power.
During the oral arguments in February, the case appeared to turn on whether the device transforms a firearm into a “machine gun.” That would enable the accessory to be prohibited as part of a category heavily regulated by the A.T.F.
During arguments, the justices appeared to struggle to understand the mechanics of a bump stock and precisely how it increases a gun’s firing speed.

​

Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress outlawed machine guns, defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” That definition was expanded under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun.
Until the Trump administration enacted its ban, bump stocks were considered legal; under an earlier interpretation of the law, they increase the speed of a gun by sliding the stock back and forth to rapidly pull the trigger, not by “a single function of the trigger” as required for a machine gun.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-gun-bump-stocks.html

 

[Aardvark86]

As noted in the other thread, many had expected that the bump stock rule was going to be the case that overruled Chevron, as the agency had invoked Chevron deference to interpret the statutory term "machine gun" to include bump stocks. Curiously, or maybe not, the court's opinion makes absolutely no reference to Chevron and treats it as a straightforward statutory interpretation question (a la Chevron step one). Honestly, it's like Chevron's actually dead, but no one wants to actually say so.

 

[FlickShagwell]

“Pro-life” lol.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Great the next mass shooters will come into the schools armed with what are functionally automatic weapons.

Also . . . the law says

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress outlawed machine guns, defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” That definition was expanded under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun.

Isn't that exactly what a bump stock is? You just hold your finger in place and let the recoil create an automatic weapon?

I certainly would love to see congress act on this and outlaw them by legislation. Of course that might get overruled by a court that says not allowing someone to have a part which makes their firearm functionally an automatic weapon infringes on their right to bear arms.

 

[GOHOX69]

Uncle Tom still wants his free trips on private jets.

 

[Rifler]

Surprising,.. I thought the bump stop ban made sense.

 

[sober_teacher]

Surprising,.. I thought the bump stop ban made sense.

Quite honestly, there are and have been any number of gun regulations that make sense to the majority of Americans but get struck down by incredibly strict interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would have written it differently were they writing it today.

 

[GOHOX69]

Quite honestly, there are and have been any number of gun regulations that make sense to the majority of Americans but get struck down by incredibly strict interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would have written it differently were they writing it today.

Who knows? Them fathers liked slaves and extra marital affairs.

 

[sober_teacher]

Who knows? Them fathers liked slaves and extra marital affairs.

Stupid deflection.

 

[FlickShagwell]

Who knows? Them fathers liked slaves and extra marital affairs.

WATCH YOUR MOUTH WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THOSE INFALLIBLE GODS AMONG MEN WHO NEVER MADE A MISTAKE AND KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE WORLD WOULD LOOK LIKE TWO HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THEY’D CROAKED!!!!

 

[GOHOX69]

Stupid deflection.

Not really. This country, much like Australia, was founded by discards who killed the indigenous people and created their own country. Nothing says to me that they were intellectual giants. In England, they would have hung them. So I think the founding fathers would have but a gack with the bump stocks. Aight.

 

[ft254]

Not really. This country, much like Australia, was founded by discards who killed the indigenous people and created their own country. Nothing says to me that they were intellectual giants. In England, they would have hung them. So I think the founding fathers would have but a gack with the bump stocks. Aight.

 

[ft254]

Nice double bank reverse cross angle.

 

[sober_teacher]

Not really. This country, much like Australia, was founded by discards who killed the indigenous people and created their own country. Nothing says to me that they were intellectual giants. In England, they would have hung them. So I think the founding fathers would have but a gack with the bump stocks. Aight.

You get that by the time of the revolution the colonies were well-established and had been for decades, and the founding fathers were nearly all well-educated men, right?

Many of whom also were smart enough to recognize that slavery was a ticking time bomb but they also knew that if they pushed the issue at the time, the Declaration of Independence, and later the constitution likely never get signed and our country doesn’t exist. They did so thinking that eventually slavery would die on its own in time.

When it comes to weapons, what they had in the late 1700s were far more basic and primitive. A TRAINED soldier could maybe fire 3 shots from a musket per minute…and then pray the bullet flew straight. Cannons would be lucky to hit their target from a couple hundred yards away. And so on.

 

[Aardvark86]

Great the next mass shooters will come into the schools armed with what are functionally automatic weapons.

Also . . . the law says

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress outlawed machine guns, defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” That definition was expanded under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun.

Isn't that exactly what a bump stock is? You just hold your finger in place and let the recoil create an automatic weapon?

I certainly would love to see congress act on this and outlaw them by legislation. Of course that might get overruled by a court that says not allowing someone to have a part which makes their firearm functionally an automatic weapon infringes on their right to bear arms.

i thought they already did.

 

[mnole03]

I’ve come full circle on this. Motivated in large part by the Biden administration’s almost total disregard of the Glock switch epidemic. He has the ATF hassling people over rifles with barrels+muzzle devices that are a 1/100th of an inch under 16”

 

[Aardvark86]

I'm not sure i want to be here when Rahimi comes out, though i guess there will be those who will laud it as a basis for appeal for hunter.

Either way, this is the second or third administrative law decision for the term (I think the G's 2-1 so far). The silver lining here is, if Congress wants to amend the statute, they are free to do so, as this is not a 2A case.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

i thought they already did.

Most mass shooters except for the Vegas shooter (who I believe set records for number of victims) are using functionally semi-automatic weapons. One pull of the trigger gives you one shot and you have to let your finger off the trigger and pull again to fire a second shot.

Vegas shooter used a bump stock which basically causes the gun to spring back forward after it recoils into your shoulder, so you just pull and keep your finger in place and it will keep firing.

You can already lay down a lot of fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Probably around 60 to 100 rounds per minute. But the bump stock I believe ups that to somewhere between 200 and 300 rounds per minute.

This is really bad. The bump stock was a part of the reason the Vegas shooter was able to set records for number of victims. (Although another part was his preparation in shooting from distance into a condensed crowd and barricading himself in a room.)

 

[GOHOX69]

You get that by the time of the revolution the colonies were well-established and had been for decades, and the founding fathers were nearly all well-educated men, right?

Many of whom also were smart enough to recognize that slavery was a ticking time bomb but they also knew that if they pushed the issue at the time, the Declaration of Independence, and later the constitution likely never get signed and our country doesn’t exist. They did so thinking that eventually slavery would die on its own in time.

When it comes to weapons, what they had in the late 1700s were far more basic and primitive. A TRAINED soldier could maybe fire 3 shots from a musket per minute…and then pray the bullet flew straight. Cannons would be lucky to hit their target from a couple hundred yards away. And so on.

I agree with your last para. As far as the slavery thing, many were active slave owners and so no reason to change.

 

[sober_teacher]

I agree with your last para. As far as the slavery thing, many were active slave owners and so no reason to change.

Some did. Others recognized that a country dedicated to life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was inherently in conflict so long as it was legal to own other human beings.

People who were pro-slavery had to make all sorts of justifications to rationalize doing so.

 

[Joes Place]

As noted in the other thread, many had expected that the bump stock rule was going to be the case that overruled Chevron, as the agency had invoked Chevron deference to interpret the statutory term "machine gun" to include bump stocks. Curiously, or maybe not, the court's opinion makes absolutely no reference to Chevron and treats it as a straightforward statutory interpretation question (a la Chevron step one). Honestly, it's like Chevron's actually dead, but no one wants to actually say so.

It died when all of Clarence's "free stuff" convinced him to reverse his original position on Chevron....

 

[Joes Place]

This is really bad. The bump stock was a part of the reason the Vegas shooter was able to set records for number of victims. (Although another part was his preparation in shooting from distance into a condensed crowd and barricading himself in a room.)

Next MAGA Terrorist:

https://media1.tenor.com/m/IWBYGs5WlhkAAAAC/how-i-met-your-mother-himym.gif

#1/6InsurgentsLookingOnCuriously

 

[ft254]

; Moral of this story: voting matters.

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[Finance85]

Surprising,.. I thought the bump stop ban made sense.

I'm as pro 2A as anyone, but bump stocks are just unsafe.

 

[Finance85]

Quite honestly, there are and have been any number of gun regulations that make sense to the majority of Americans but get struck down by incredibly strict interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would have written it differently were they writing it today.

Maybe that's why they offered tow separate ways of amending the constitution.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

View embedded media

The supreme court he created is overturning a law he created.....


Your entire existence is fear mongering and panic.

 

[Joes Place]

The supreme court he created is overturning a law he created.....

This was not a law

It was an Exec Order.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

This was not a law

It was an Exec Order.

Outstanding.

 

[Scruddy]

View embedded media

They don't turn a semi into a machine gun lol anyone selling this bag of shit either knows nothing about guns or is blatantly fearmongering/tribe signaling

Outstanding.

Peak joe lol

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Maybe that's why they offered tow separate ways of amending the constitution.

There is 2 separate ways to get the ball rolling. To approve it there is only one way which is agreement from 3/4ths of the state legislatures. That is an impossible barrier to overcome for most things.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I have lost any faith in our Supreme Court. Sure, there are always going to be decisions we disagree with. I can and will live with that. Part of our system.

But this Court is so out of reality of the American public, it is a first in our country's history.

I'm at a loss for words.

 

[Gimmered]

Surprising,.. I thought the bump stop ban made sense.

A bump stock ban does make sense. It just needs an reasonable Congress to act on it.

 

[Joes Place]

Outstanding.

Yep

Trump thought he could "solve" everything w/ exec orders.

He COULD HAVE negotiated with Congress to pass more formal and expansive law.
He DID NOT do that, IIRC.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Yep

Trump thought he could "solve" everything w/ exec orders.

He COULD HAVE negotiated with Congress to pass more formal and expansive law.
He DID NOT do that, IIRC.

Yeah, those executive orders, amirite, guys who do those are the worst....

 

[Joes Place]

Yeah, those executive orders, amirite

LOLWUT?

The Court ruled that the Exec Order was an improper use of Exec powers.
The ruling may have been upheld had it been formally passed through legislation. Unless I'm mistaken on that point, it was not.

This is yet another example of why Executive Orders are not "equivalent" to laws.
You MAGAs seem to be completely illiterate on basic civics.....perhaps more SchoolHouse Rock vids are needed for you.

 

[pablow]

This was not a law

It was an Exec Order.

Yep

Trump thought he could "solve" everything w/ exec orders.

He COULD HAVE negotiated with Congress to pass more formal and expansive law.
He DID NOT do that, IIRC.

Yeah, those executive orders, amirite, guys who do those are the worst....

Read the opinion - it was an ATF rule, not an EO.

 

[sober_teacher]

Yeah, those executive orders, amirite, guys who do those are the worst....

Imo, the worst are the people who complain about doing that instead of passing legislation, knowing all the while that they couldn’t possibly get thru legislation for the same purpose without watering it down to the point of uselessness.

 

[Joes Place]

Read the opinion - it was an ATF rule, not an EO.

The ATF rule came about from the EO, as I recall here.

W/o that order, ATF did not have the authority.

 

[Aardvark86]

LOLWUT?

The Court ruled that the Exec Order was an improper use of Exec powers.
The ruling may have been upheld had it been formally passed through legislation. Unless I'm mistaken on that point, it was not.

This is yet another example of why Executive Orders are not "equivalent" to laws.
You MAGAs seem to be completely illiterate on basic civics.....perhaps more SchoolHouse Rock vids are needed for you.

Sigh, against my better judgement....

Let's get our facts straight shall we, before we go yammering on about civic illiteracy?

What was at issue here was not an executive order, but an agency regulation. There is a massive difference. And 'improper use of executive powers' is overstating things very slightly. The better characterization is simply that the statutory definition of machine gun (which relies on things that mechanical engineers like to describe) was not broad enough to encompass the mechanics of operating a bump stock. (Note, i'm not a gun nut, and have never even shot one, so have no idea whether that's right or wrong). Funnily enough, BTW, Senator Feinstein, during the contemporaneous debates to amend the statute, noted that ATF lacked the authority to do what it did by rule, for the reasons the court ultimately settled on.

Joe, I actually like much of your content, I really do, but there are those here, yourself included sometimes, that revert to this reductionist 'but trump' or 'but thomas' line all too often, and here in just a fabulously misplaced way. In theory, I'd think your anger here would be best, and perfectly fairly, directed to a republican congress that did not enact legislation in response to vegas, rather than to trump for actually going through notice and comment rulemaking to create something that would be more defensible from a 'force and effect of law' perspective. (This sequence, btw, is laid out quite well in the opinion itself, which I'm sure 90% of the people here have not even skimmed.)