Supreme Court won't hear bump stock ban case

[eagleclaw]

I suppose the court thought New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen was enough pro 2nd amendment decisions for a while.

Supreme Court won't hear case opposing Trump-era bump stock ban
Denial by justices latest blow to Second Amendment activists opposed to bump stock ban

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case in which Second Amendment activists sought to invalidate the Trump-era ban on bump stocks — the latest in multiple such cases the justices have refused to take up.
The lawsuit, Gun Owners of America v. Garland, initially targeted former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker while former President Donald Trump was in office. More recently, Attorney General Merrick Garland, appointed by President Biden, was the top named defendant after taking over the lead Justice Department post.

The case challenged a 2018 decision by the Justice Department under Trump to ban bump stocks. That move followed the 2017 mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas, in which a man used rifles with bump stocks to kill 60 people and injure hundreds.
Bump stocks are attachments to semi-automatic rifles which use the recoil of the weapon to slide its body forwards and backwards. This effectively allows a shooter to fire several times in rapid succession while only needing to actively squeeze the trigger once, in a manner similar to a fully automatic weapon.

"We are faithfully following President Trump’s leadership by making clear that bump stocks, which turn semiautomatics into machine guns, are illegal, and we will continue to take illegal guns off of our streets," Whitaker said in a statement at the time.

A federal district court sided with the government in 2019 before a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision last year. In part, the appeals panel argued that federal agencies do not possess the broad authority to decide major policy issues like whether to ban a certain gun accessory like a bump stock.

A subsequent decision by the entire Sixth Circuit, however, overruled the three-judge panel and reinstated the lower court's order siding with the government.

Gun Owners of America then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in earlier this year. The group said the government's rule banning bump stocks is disconnected from reality.

"The question is whether common firearm accessories called ‘bump stocks’ constitute ‘machineguns’ under the statutory definition… and thus are banned from private possession," Gun Owners of America said in a brief. "The answer to that question is a definitive ‘no.’ A firearm equipped with a bump stock does not meet either prong of Congress’s carefully-crafted and unambiguous definition of ‘machinegun.’"

The Biden Justice Department in its own brief, meanwhile, argued the exact opposite.

"ATF’s interpretation of the phrase ‘single function of the trigger’ reflects the common-sense understanding of how most weapons are fired: by the shooter’s pull on a curved metal trigger," the Justice Department brief said. "[O]n a machinegun — including a weapon equipped with a bump stock — that same single pull of the trigger initiates a continuous process that fires bullets until the ammunition is exhausted."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...bump-stock-ban

[bogey1]

And they wont hear mike lindell's case either.

[ShadeRabbit]

Not a great harbinger for pistol braces...

[ExFlyinguy]

Not a great harbinger for pistol braces...

or FRT triggers.


So much for that 4d chess I heard so much about

[Delkal]

We have to remember that Trump banned more firearms than Obama (who didn't ban anything).

[thefirstndsecond]

huh... he did? What firearms did he ban?

[Mr_Gixxer]

We have to remember that Trump banned more firearms than Obama (who didn't ban anything).

Don't tell them how Obama actually expanded gun rights, their heads might explode!

Vote for Oz!

And fuck Obama BTW.

[Spirit of 76]

Another monstrosity inimical to the inherent right to keep and bear arms --which is recognized by Amendment II -- brought to you by Precedent Conald Judas Trumpleone.

[bug]

Yes, he handled that one beautifully. Made it a non-issue with one stroke knowing full well it wouldn't meet constitutional muster. Bravo.

[Spirit of 76]

Yes, he handled that one beautifully. Made it a non-issue with one stroke knowing full well it wouldn't meet constitutional muster. Bravo.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Firstly, Trump would have no way to know how the courts would ultimately rule. Secondly, why set an unconstitutional precedent that other presidents are sure to mimic (and have), and which would force those harmed by the illegal move into constant court battles?

Only pretzel logic could construe that illegally banning a gun accessory by dictatorial, executive edict, and making non-compliant Americans into federal felons by the stroke of a pen is a good move.

Furthermore, when Trump espoused his affinity for red flag laws which violate due process, he said the following:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Given the historical record of Trump's actions -- as opposed to his flowery, 2A rhetoric at rallies -- in my view, believing the bump stock ban was a 4-D chess move by Trump to ultimately have the edict overturned is nothing more than cultic delusion.