Supreme Court Overturns Trump-Era Ban on Bump Stocks

[Social Media]

 

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the controversial gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. This decision, passed by a 6-3 majority, reverses a significant piece of legislation that was implemented in response to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

 

In the 2017 attack, a gunman equipped with bump stocks unleashed more than 1,000 rounds into a crowd at a country music festival, resulting in the deaths of 60 people and injuries to hundreds more within just 11 minutes. The incident prompted a nationwide debate on gun control and led the Trump administration to ban the use of bump stocks. However, the Supreme Court's recent ruling found that the administration did not adhere to federal law in enacting this ban.

 

The case that led to the overturning of the ban was brought forward by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner. Cargill argued that the Justice Department had incorrectly classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns. His representation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group supported by conservative donors including the Koch network, contended that while bump stocks do enable rapid firing, they do not transform semi-automatic weapons into true machine guns. They emphasized that the shooter must exert additional effort to maintain the rapid fire, differentiating bump stocks from machine guns which fire continuously with one trigger pull.

 

On the other hand, the Biden administration defended the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) decision to ban bump stocks, arguing that the accessories allowed weapons to fire at an excessive rate, comparable to machine guns. The government lawyers pointed out that the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks came after a more thorough review initiated by the tragic events in Las Vegas, suggesting that the decision was sound and legally justified.

 

The Supreme Court's ruling was influenced by differing opinions on the role and authority of the ATF versus legislative action by Congress. Justices from the court’s liberal wing argued that it was "common sense" to classify any device capable of unleashing a "torrent of bullets" as a machine gun under federal law. However, conservative justices questioned why Congress had not directly legislated on the matter and raised concerns about the implications of the ATF reversing its stance after a decade of considering bump stocks legal.

 

Historically, under both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama, the ATF had maintained that bump stocks did not convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. It was only at President Trump's urging, following the Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida shootings, that the ATF reversed its earlier decisions and implemented the ban.

 

Bump stocks function by replacing a rifle’s stock—the part that rests against the shooter’s shoulder—and utilizing the weapon’s recoil to "bump" the trigger against the shooter’s stationary finger, facilitating rapid firing. Despite their contentious nature, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own bans on bump stocks, independent of federal regulation.

 

At the heart of the legal debate was whether the effort required by the shooter to maintain rapid fire with a bump stock constituted a significant enough difference to exempt these accessories from being classified as machine guns. Government lawyers asserted that the minimal effort required did not alter the legal status of the devices. 

 

The ban on bump stocks, which went into effect in 2019, required owners to either surrender or destroy their devices, resulting in an estimated combined loss of $100 million, according to court documents. At that time, there were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation.

 

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the complexities and nuances in the ongoing debate over gun control and regulatory authority. It also highlights the challenges in balancing public safety concerns with constitutional rights and the limits of executive versus legislative power. This ruling, set against the backdrop of previous and potential future mass shootings, will likely fuel further discussions and legislative efforts regarding firearm regulations in the United States.

 

Credit: AP News 2024-06-15

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Tug]

Unfreaking believable I’m truly dumbfounded another sad day in America.id sure like to hear a valid reason why anyone would need this….

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm waiting for someone to blame Trump for this, despite them being banned during his administration.

So much for those that maintain Trump never did anything "good".

[2baht]

Yee haw, God damn it Chip, wherrrre's ma gun?

[amexpat]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm waiting for someone to blame Trump for this, despite them being banned during his administration.

So much for those that maintain Trump never did anything "good".

As if dRump had anything to do with the ban other than appointing the supremes who overturned it. 

Edited June 15 by amexpat

[LosLobo]

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm waiting for someone to blame Trump for this, despite them being banned during his administration.

So much for those that maintain Trump never did anything "good".

Your master Trump is denying he had anything to do with the ban during his administration.

 

I suggest you need to wait for the official Magaworld conspiracy talking point before jumping the gun and making yourself look ridiculous.

'Trump once defied the NRA to ban bump stocks. He now says he ‘did nothing’ to restrict guns'.
 

Trump once defied the NRA to ban bump stocks. He now says he 'did nothing' to restrict guns | AP News

Edited June 15 by LosLobo

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, amexpat said:

As if dRump had anything to do with the ban other than appointing the supremes who overturned it. 

As expected, and didn't take long either.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm waiting for someone to blame Trump for this, despite them being banned during his administration.

So much for those that maintain Trump never did anything "good".

I'm waiting for you to understand that 3 of the 6 votes to make this very dubious and hypocritical ruling came from justices appointed by Trump. All 3 passed muster with the Federalist Society. That they would vote this way was to be expected.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Republicans: Life begins at conception and ends in a mass shooting.

[spidermike007]

There is no doubt this may be the worst supreme court in US history. They just keep making bad decisions. No wonder the public has no faith in them anymore. 

 

Does anyone need more proof that America adores its violence and mayhem? 

Edited June 15 by spidermike007

[tilaceer]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm waiting for someone to blame Trump for this, despite them being banned during his administration.

So much for those that maintain Trump never did anything "good".

I am not gonna get into a Trump bashing exercise with you but it is a possibility that Trump did not ban bump stocks because he wanted to do something good. He just wanted to look like he was doing something good, hence his response to what his stacked Supreme Court have just ruled.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-nra-counted-court-bump-stocks-legal-rcna157186

[amexpat]

From the link for thaibeachlover who would never read anything that is not favorable to dear leader: 

 

Trump and the NRA counted on the Supreme Court to keep bump stocks legal

Analysis: When Trump banned the devices after a mass shooting, he did so with the gun lobby's support. They understood the court was likely to overturn the prohibition.

[Presto]

There's always a lot of talk about Thailand, where a human life doesn't count for much, but America is not different.

[riclag]

 From the story:

This ruling, set against the backdrop of previous and potential future mass shootings, will likely fuel further discussions and legislative efforts regarding firearm regulations in the United States.

 

When news comes out about a sick mental or criminal person’s writing’s , they should be published immediately .

 

Nashville school shooter manifesto: Police group sides with school in lawsuit over release.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nashville-school-shooter-audrey-hale-manifesto-police-group-sides-with-school-lawsuit-over-release

 

[Woof999]

Just when you thought the US couldn't get any dumber.

[wwest5829]

There goes my mind … again, mulling over another SCOTUS ruling. One of my favorite higher education (college) courses was on Constitutional Law. I had actually thought I might purse a Juris Doctor degree after I earned my B.A. Ah well, we all have roads not taken. The decision? Voiding the forbidding of the sale  of “Bump Stocks”. Oh, yes I think they should be banned but … there is the question raised concerning federal government agencies making rules/regulations, in good measure due to the failure of Congress to deal with issues. The federal agencies fill the void to address the need … Here I both recognize “something must be done” (as there is a demonstrated need) and that the proper addressing of the issue should be done by Congress. I find great irony here, those who want smaller federal government are depending on Congressional inaction to limit the role of government. Bottom line … a demonstrated need to go unaddressed resulting in more potential mass deaths.

[Presto]

38 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

There goes my mind … again, mulling over another SCOTUS ruling. One of my favorite higher education (college) courses was on Constitutional Law. I had actually thought I might purse a Juris Doctor degree after I earned my B.A. Ah well, we all have roads not taken. The decision? Voiding the forbidding of the sale  of “Bump Stocks”. Oh, yes I think they should be banned but … there is the question raised concerning federal government agencies making rules/regulations, in good measure due to the failure of Congress to deal with issues. The federal agencies fill the void to address the need … Here I both recognize “something must be done” (as there is a demonstrated need) and that the proper addressing of the issue should be done by Congress. I find great irony here, those who want smaller federal government are depending on Congressional inaction to limit the role of government. Bottom line … a demonstrated need to go unaddressed resulting in more potential mass deaths.

And the (corrupt) Supreme Court accumulating power all the time, while in their arrogance placing themselves above any scrutiny.

What a weird system of government.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, amexpat said:

From the link for thaibeachlover who would never read anything that is not favorable to dear leader: 

 

Trump and the NRA counted on the Supreme Court to keep bump stocks legal

Analysis: When Trump banned the devices after a mass shooting, he did so with the gun lobby's support. They understood the court was likely to overturn the prohibition.

I try not to read propaganda from either side. BS is boring.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, tilaceer said:

I am not gonna get into a Trump bashing exercise with you but it is a possibility that Trump did not ban bump stocks because he wanted to do something good. He just wanted to look like he was doing something good, hence his response to what his stacked Supreme Court have just ruled.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-nra-counted-court-bump-stocks-legal-rcna157186

I just read your link and as expected long on assumption and short on verifiable facts. Just because some guy writing for NBC ( LOL ) says that I'm supposed to believe it, LOL. You'll have to do better than some opinion piece from NBC. Something from someone that actually heard Trump say that would be a start, and then they need to be an unbiased source to be acceptable.

 

BTW, the link in the OP just leads to a load of articles and no way I'm wasting my time looking through them all for something when they are from NBC.

 

You don't even support the article 100% given your use of "it is a possibility that Trump did not ban bump stocks because he wanted to do something good".

 

Next.

Edited June 15 by thaibeachlovers

[LosLobo]

 

“We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Thomas wrote.


Though it may not be a machine gun it can achieve a similar rate of fire and kill as many people.

Surely Thomas' technicality should not overrule the capability and therefore the danger of the bump stock.

 

 

Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks - The New York Times (archive.md)

Edited June 15 by LosLobo

[tilaceer]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just read your link and as expected long on assumption and short on verifiable facts. Just because some guy writing for NBC ( LOL ) says that I'm supposed to believe it, LOL. You'll have to do better than some opinion piece from NBC. Something from someone that actually heard Trump say that would be a start, and then they need to be an unbiased source to be acceptable.

 

BTW, the link in the OP just leads to a load of articles and no way I'm wasting my time looking through them all for something when they are from NBC.

 

You don't even support the article 100% given your use of "it is a possibility that Trump did not ban bump stocks because he wanted to do something good".

 

Next.

You have missed the point. 
I never said it was a fact, it was an alternative possibility of why Trump appeared to do something good out of a sense of humanity, when it fact it could have just been politically expedient at that point in time. Irrespective of who authored the article it just provides another perspective. It is up to you whether you feel this narrative  could be applicable, but of course being a Trumpist, (Yeah, I know you say you're not), you jump in with both feet with no other agenda other than just to discredit the article.
Next.

[candide]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I try not to read propaganda from either side. BS is boring.

Then why do you regularly post some?

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Then why do you regularly post some?

In his defense, he hardly ever posts any links at all except AJ on the war in the ME.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Then why do you regularly post some?

He's channeling?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, tilaceer said:

You have missed the point. 
I never said it was a fact, it was an alternative possibility of why Trump appeared to do something good out of a sense of humanity, when it fact it could have just been politically expedient at that point in time. Irrespective of who authored the article it just provides another perspective. It is up to you whether you feel this narrative  could be applicable, but of course being a Trumpist, (Yeah, I know you say you're not), you jump in with both feet with no other agenda other than just to discredit the article.
Next.

I could make the same sort of assumptions about Biden, but that would be giving him credit for having a functioning brain.

 

We can all invent some hypothesis about any famous person, but it's of more use to spend our time debating reality.

 

Trumpist? I said right at the very start of his first campaign that he was going to be entertaining, and I wasn't wrong. It's more entertaining than Coronation Street for sure. The movie is going to be a big hit- Oscars even.

Do I want him to be POTUS? Not really. It's time for someone with big boy pants to take over to sort the myriad problems facing western civilization. It's almost too late to save it, but some actually clever person just might be able to rescue us from THE END. That isn't either of the 2 candidates at present.

 

Unfortunately, given the ability of the human race to always get it wrong, I think it's almost time for the fat lady to start singing. It's not likely to happen all at once though. The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to fall, so we likely have 10 or 20, even 30 if we are very lucky.

 

 

[KhunLA]

On 6/15/2024 at 4:23 AM, Tug said:

Unfreaking believable I’m truly dumbfounded another sad day in America.id sure like to hear a valid reason why anyone would need this….

I'd like to know anyone who would actually want it.  It's just marketing, and a POS add-on.  Unless an experience shooter, it will hinder your accuracy.   If an experienced shooter, you wouldn't use it anyway.

 

Unplug from MSM ... more divisionary distraction IMHO.

 

Nobody who takes firearm ownership seriously would buy one, want or use it.

[tilaceer]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I could make the same sort of assumptions about Biden, but that would be giving him credit for having a functioning brain.

 

We can all invent some hypothesis about any famous person, but it's of more use to spend our time debating reality.

 

Trumpist? I said right at the very start of his first campaign that he was going to be entertaining, and I wasn't wrong. It's more entertaining than Coronation Street for sure. The movie is going to be a big hit- Oscars even.

Do I want him to be POTUS? Not really. It's time for someone with big boy pants to take over to sort the myriad problems facing western civilization. It's almost too late to save it, but some actually clever person just might be able to rescue us from THE END. That isn't either of the 2 candidates at present.

 

Unfortunately, given the ability of the human race to always get it wrong, I think it's almost time for the fat lady to start singing. It's not likely to happen all at once though. The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to fall, so we likely have 10 or 20, even 30 if we are very lucky.

 

 

What part of this facile diatribe is relevant in any way to the reasoning behind Trump banning bump stocks ?
Debating reality  ?  Debating with you people is like trying to have a conversation with a Sov. Cit. Talk about an alternate universe.
Prattle away...

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, tilaceer said:

What part of this facile diatribe is relevant in any way to the reasoning behind Trump banning bump stocks ?
Debating reality  ?  Debating with you people is like trying to have a conversation with a Sov. Cit. Talk about an alternate universe.
Prattle away...

You have zero idea of the reasoning behind Trump banning bump stocks. If you actually knew you wouldn't be linking to opinion pieces.

 

Debating with you is like trying to have a conversation with a Biden cultist. Talk about an alternate universe.
Prattle away...

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I could make the same sort of assumptions about Biden, but that would be giving him credit for having a functioning brain.

 

We can all invent some hypothesis about any famous person, but it's of more use to spend our time debating reality.

 

Trumpist? I said right at the very start of his first campaign that he was going to be entertaining, and I wasn't wrong. It's more entertaining than Coronation Street for sure. The movie is going to be a big hit- Oscars even.

Do I want him to be POTUS? Not really. It's time for someone with big boy pants to take over to sort the myriad problems facing western civilization. It's almost too late to save it, but some actually clever person just might be able to rescue us from THE END. That isn't either of the 2 candidates at present.

 

Unfortunately, given the ability of the human race to always get it wrong, I think it's almost time for the fat lady to start singing. It's not likely to happen all at once though. The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to fall, so we likely have 10 or 20, even 30 if we are very lucky.

 

Seems you regularly make assumptions about Biden.

Functioning brain? Really, are you self-projecting?

Debating reality. I look forward to spending time debating reality with you.

 

Yet, for past years you have been unable to elicit any response to my posts let alone anything about debating reality which seemingly has been anathema to you.

For your own well-being I suggest you need to move on from 2000-year-old history 60-year-old TV and Nostradamus 'the end is nigh' yearly predictions.

These are definitely not in the realm modern day reality.

Have you ever considered posting links to support your hypotheses, this would be a good step towards the ethos of debate and the support of discussion with evidence.?

 

[tilaceer]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You have zero idea of the reasoning behind Trump banning bump stocks. If you actually knew you wouldn't be linking to opinion pieces.

 

Debating with you is like trying to have a conversation with a Biden cultist. Talk about an alternate universe.
Prattle away...

QED