Posted on 03/02/2020 7:19:04 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON - - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal of the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic firearms to fire rapidly like machine guns.
The justices did not comment in declining to review a lower court-ruling that upheld the ban, which took effect nearly a year ago.
President Donald Trump said that the government would move to ban bump stocks, following a 2017 shooting in Las Vegas in which a gunman attached bump stocks to assault-style rifles he used to shoot concertgoers from his hotel room. By using the devices, which allow shots to be fired more rapidly, the gunman was able to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes. Fifty-eight people were killed, and hundreds were injured.
The Trump administration’s move was an about-face for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 2010, under the Obama administration, the ATF found that the devices were legal. But under the Trump administration, officials revisited that determination and found it incorrect. The revised regulation requires owners either to destroy their bump stocks or surrender them. The government estimates hundreds of thousands of the devices have been sold.
The revised regulation was met with resistance from gun rights advocates, including the groups and gun owners who filed suit in Washington, D.C., and whose appeal the court turned away Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
infringe a little, infringe a lot.
Property rights were taken away in the 1920’s with zoning and plenty of people are 100% ok with that on here.
Why should bump stocks be treated any different?
but of course they did.
So, bump stocks are not arms
automatic arms are regulated
bump stocks are regulated
QED
Probably for the better. Trying to hinge rights on clever gimmicks designed to badly circumvent actual unconstitutional restrictions leads to clever narrow verdicts that are subject to deliberate & wide-ranging misinterpretations.
We need someone to bring a straight-up case regarding quintessential arms (M4) impacted by 922(o). Some verdict recently did address “AR15s are practically identical to M4s”; leverage that plus “commonality” of both (AR15 in civilian population, M4 in military, only difference about $1 in simple parts; can’t claim “not common” when banned outright and close equivalent abounds). Cover all bases a la Heller decision. I’d _like_ to see a “boilerplate” version: free public DIY legal kit for thousands to simultaneously file identical suit in hundreds of jurisdictions, preventing case from hanging on a single plaintiff, forcing the issue by varying verdicts in lower courts, crowdsourcing a few organically ideal representatives (rather than crafting one), show enough interest to invoke class action.
Relying on fringe cases, especially in light of the Vegas shooting, with no other objectively & constitutionally imperative purpose, doesn’t end well.
Its a narrow argument anyway. The argument should be over whether the NFA is constitutional or not, IMO.
One does not need a device to make a semi auto rock and roll. They can have our belts but our pants will fall down.
The ATF reinterpreted the law to mean that a piece of plastic is now a machine gun.
The Supreme Court agrees that the ATF can say the law is whatever they say it is.
It sure won’t deter the bad guys or the feds with their super fire power to control the populace.
It is unconstitutional and flys in the face of 85 years of gun law!
If your Freedom Defense Plan hinged on bump stocks as a Center of Gravity, then I highly recommend you rethink your plan.
...the gunman was able to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes.
So he essentially fired about 100 rounds a minute.
So what the hell did he need a bump stock for?
The bump stock was the toe in the door they had been seeking, a principal reason the Las Vegas event was staged as it was.
Ironically, if I recall correctly, the bump stock was invented to assist physically handicapped hunters.
On a side note, anyone have experience shooting a kel-tec pma-30 (.22 rimfire magnum)?
Next on the list: Binary triggers.
I don’t consider this one a “slippery slope” issue. It’s about a dangerous add-on. You wan’t a fully automatic weapon? Buy one and get the necessary permits.
Or make your own bump stock.
yup... just sets a precedent to infringe more.
“Binary triggers”
Another one to not risk RKBA on.
Law references “single operation of the trigger”; really hard to sanely explain why letting go (which initiates a second shot) should not be included within that “operation” - it’s not like you can realistically fire one shot, then just hold the trigger indefinitely.
Just get a full-blown 922(o) case to SCOTUS already. M4s are “common” as military gear, and “common” in civilian population with only a slight well-defined difference (a la AR15); alleged “not common” is only because a trivial difference is overwhelmingly illegal ($250,000 fine, 10 yrs prison), no question would be “common” if legal.
Quibbling over bizarre word games & toy mechanisms only delays full RKBA.
Nothing against bump stock proponents, but I am having a hard time rationalizing that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.