Trump's Bump Stock Ban Not Likely to Survive the Supreme Court

RedState ^ | February 29, 2024 | Streiff

[chickenlips]

Questions asked by Supreme Court justices Wednesday indicated that the ATF's ban on bump stocks will probably not survive.

While justices agreed that the government had the authority to ban bump stocks and that they functioned in a way that duplicated the performance covered in the 1934 Firearms Act that limited possession of fully automatic weapons, the six conservative justices seemed inclined to strike down the ATF rule because bump stocks do not function in the way specified in the law and because the government admitted that anyone possessing a bump stock purchased before the ATF rule or after a circuit court decision striking down the rule could be prosecuted.

The ban on bump stocks went into effect after Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of concert-goers on the Las Vegas Strip in 2017. He killed 60 people and wounded over 400. His motive remains unknown and seems to invoke no curiosity. Trump caved to public pressure and ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to regulate the previously legal items.

Trump's memorandum to Sessions directs the Department of Justice to "dedicate all available resources" to completing a review of more than 100,000 comments it received from December through January on a notice of a proposed rulemaking. Trump directed the department to, "as expeditiously as possible," propose for notice and comment "a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns."

This action reversed 2003 and 2010 determinations by the ATF that a bump stock did not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machinegun and was, therefore, legal.

The rule was challenged and overturned by the Fifth Circuit, bringing us to yesterday's Supreme Court action. SNIP>>>>

[chickenlips]

It seems the same arguments could be made against the pistol brace restrictions.

[NWFree]

They were never full auto and not really practical but it’s a fun way to eat up a lot of ammo very quickly and you cut chop down little trees

[gibsonguy]

Meanwhile a new rat law just click here in Mi l have to get permission from the local police to buy a gun and if l get permission l am required to put a trigger lock
on it. Then l am civilly responsible if it gets stolen and someone gets killed. That last one is for the trial lawyers who fund the rats.

[DownInFlames]

Shall not be infringed. Why is that so hard to understand.

[wardamneagle]

You dont need a bump stock in order to get the same rapid results.....

[zeugma]

Reading through oral arguments, I was extremely disappointed that no second amendment argument was made at all. It was only brought up once, and that was essentially to say that they aren't making a 2nd Amendmeny claim.

Full auto weapons are definately covered by the Second Amendment. The Court, if they were honest, could not say otherwise. Miller was decided incorrectly because the government effectively lied to the court, and did not inform the court that sawed-off shotguns were used extensively during WWI.

[kawhill]

I worked with a guy, former military, and after that atrocity in Vegas was talking to him about bump stocks and I told him I didn’t even know what the hell a bump stock was and I’ve been around firearms my whole life. He explained it to me and said you could achieve the same effect by simply hooking your thumb through a belt loop in your jeans.

[Badboo]

Dahm! Donald Trump's attack on the 2nd Amendment, going farther than Obama would ever go, maybe overturned. Trump tried to give BATF carte blanch to declare anything they don't like illegal and it may not succeed. Is Donald sad?

[publiusF27]

The second amendment wasn't the only part of the bill of rights to be ignored. Companies destroyed millions of dollars in inventory after Trump reinterpreted the law to say they were felons for owning it. There was no compensation.

It wasn't the government's job to inform the court about the militia uses of short shotguns. It was Miller's and he was dead or missing so no one made that argument.