"Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

1
The Supreme Court on Friday stepped into a new gun rights battle by agreeing to weigh whether a Trump-era ban on so-called bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly, is lawful. The justices were asked by both the Biden administration and gun rights activists to take up the issue, with lower courts reaching differing conclusions on it. The case concerns Texas-based gun owner and licensed dealer Michael Cargill, who owned two bump stocks before the ban went into effect and later surrendered them to the government. He sued, claiming that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacked the legal authority to implement the prohibition.

The conservative-majority high court issued a major ruling in June 2022 that expanded gun rights, although the legal issues arising from the bump stocks ban are different. President Donald Trump’s administration imposed the ban after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, when Stephen Paddock used bump stocks to open fire on a country music festival, initially killing 58 people. Paddock died by suicide as he was about to be apprehended. The policy went into effect in 2019 after the Supreme Court declined to block it. Since then, the already conservative court has tilted further to the right, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020. The court, with its new 6-3 conservative majority, ruled for the first time in the June 2022 gun rights decision that the right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a handgun outside the home. The ruling was the most significant expansion of gun rights since the Supreme Court held in 2008 that there was an individual right to bear arms in self-defense at home.

The bump stocks challenge does not implicate the scope of the right to bear arms. The challengers argue that the government does not have authority to ban bump stocks under the National Firearms Act, a law enacted in 1934 to regulate machine guns. The 1968 Gun Control Act expanded the definition of "machine gun" to include accessories “for use in converting a weapon” into a machine gun, and the ATF concluded that bump stocks meet that definition. Those challenging the ban said the legal definition of machine gun has been distorted beyond recognition and argue that courts should not defer to the federal agency’s interpretation.

Richard Samp, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal group representing Cargill, said, “ATF for many years recognized that bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic weapons are not ‘machineguns.’ Its sudden reversal can only be explained as a decision to allow political expediency to trump the rule of law." The Supreme Court in October 2022 turned away two earlier cases brought by gun rights advocates challenging the bump stocks ban. Now the legal landscape is different, with both the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the ban was unlawful. The Biden administration appealed in both cases, while gun rights advocates asked the justices to hear their appeal from a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the ban.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rcna121466

The case is Cargill vs Garland.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/p ... 16-CV2.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

3
NonServiam wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 8:53 am If the ban holds they're going to have to find a way to also ban people from possessing the knowledge of how to bump fire without a bump stock. Good luck forcing people to unlearn stuff.
Agree, belt loop hold is going to be hard unlearn and even harder to ban.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

4
I also think the ban will hold. In addition to "the knowledge," I claim these bump stocks are not "arms," and they can be banned for what ever reason as long as there are enough votes. I mean, technically they could ban the use of maple for gun stocks with enough votes, though my delicious Mauser sporter would instantly fear becoming naked. I would likely then go with arctic birch.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

5
It takes the vote of four justices to hear a case and five votes to win. In 2022 there weren't four votes to hear those two cases, but following the 5th and 6th circuit rulings there are.

The Bureau of ATF&E part of US DOJ, has been inconsistent.
Between 2008 and 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) repeatedly issued classification decisions stating that non-mechanical bump stocks are not “machinegun” under section 5845(b). But in 2018, ATF reversed its longstanding interpretation and issued a rule declaring bump stocks machineguns and ordering Americans possessing those devices to destroy them or abandon them at an ATF office by March 26, 2019. The question presented is as follows:

1. Whether a bump stock–equipped semiautomatic weapon fires “automatically more than
one shot … by a single function of the trigger” and thus falls within the definition of a “machinegun” in section 5845(b). The Court should also address the following question,
which was addressed by the court of appeals and is encompassed within the government’s question presented: 2. If the definition of “machinegun” in section 5845(b) is ambiguous, whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held that the rule of lenity requires courts to construe that statutory ambiguity against the government.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... %20Opp.pdf

If Congress wants to make bump stocks illegal, they should amend the US Code and ban them but it hasn't. Either SCOTUS will say that or they'll agree with ATF's interpretation or it's up to Congress to explicitly ban them. Both Garland and Cargill wanted this cases granted cert so they have a final decision.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

6
CDFingers wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:42 am I also think the ban will hold. In addition to "the knowledge," I claim these bump stocks are not "arms," and they can be banned for what ever reason as long as there are enough votes. I mean, technically they could ban the use of maple for gun stocks with enough votes, though my delicious Mauser sporter would instantly fear becoming naked. I would likely then go with arctic birch.

CDFingers
So what would prevent them from banning triggers? Or banning any firearm from weighing under 25 pounds? Maybe both? If the stock isn't an "arm", then what is the justification for the banning? Just ban the use of any form of plastic from being used with or in the construction of a firearm. I'm certain that should a ban on maple gun stocks be tried it would need some justification.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

7
BKinzey wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 12:37 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:42 am I also think the ban will hold. In addition to "the knowledge," I claim these bump stocks are not "arms," and they can be banned for what ever reason as long as there are enough votes. I mean, technically they could ban the use of maple for gun stocks with enough votes, though my delicious Mauser sporter would instantly fear becoming naked. I would likely then go with arctic birch.

CDFingers
So what would prevent them from banning triggers? Or banning any firearm from weighing under 25 pounds? Maybe both? If the stock isn't an "arm", then what is the justification for the banning? Just ban the use of any form of plastic from being used with or in the construction of a firearm. I'm certain that should a ban on maple gun stocks be tried it would need some justification.
You bring up a valid point. I would say that triggers are integral to the operation of the firearm, so without a trigger the arm does not function. With a ban on maple for the stock or a bump stock, or even with a "high capacity magazine," as opposed to a "standard capacity magazine," the arm would still function.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

9
I'm not so sure fearful people need a justification for trying to ban something. It would be up to the courts to decide whether a ban would be legal based on cogitation on the meaning of the Constitution.

It's always fun to analyze whether a proposal would become law, always fun to speculate. But it always depends upon the judges at the time, the district, the politics, and what bribes and deals might happen behind the scenes.

We know in California it's illegal for a gang of 10+1 bad guys to make an attack, because that's the limit of our magazine size. It has to be true because all the gangs in my area are about six or seven guys strong. And half of those are stoned on fentanyl, so they're as dangerous as a big sack of rice. [/s]

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

10
sikacz wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:16 pm At what point do we stop defending arbitrary criteria. Technically one still has the right to free speech if it was limited to one day, a specific hour and a decreed minute. It’s still exists and is functional. At what point do we say an infringement serves no purpose?
Is it infringement if the 'Yellow Flag Law' in Maine was applied properly to Card? Is it 'infringement' if a violent felon is not allowed to legally buy a firearm? Is it 'infringement' if a drug addict wants to buy a gun? Or a documented domestic abuser? 'Infringement' DOES serve useful purposes.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

11
F4FEver wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 7:14 am
sikacz wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:16 pm At what point do we stop defending arbitrary criteria. Technically one still has the right to free speech if it was limited to one day, a specific hour and a decreed minute. It’s still exists and is functional. At what point do we say an infringement serves no purpose?
Is it infringement if the 'Yellow Flag Law' in Maine was applied properly to Card? Is it 'infringement' if a violent felon is not allowed to legally buy a firearm? Is it 'infringement' if a drug addict wants to buy a gun? Or a documented domestic abuser? 'Infringement' DOES serve useful purposes.
The right to use words and guns is an interesting contrast. One trigger pull by a deranged person can kill another person 100 meters or more away. Not so with the utterance of a single word. Therein lies our challenge.

We have seen where the orange spirochete used hundreds and hundreds of words in order to persuade some of his moronic followers to storm the Capitol and to engage in acts of stochastic terrorism across America. As he builds up the context of words, he needs fewer and fewer to get his point across. Yet he has not achieved so rich a context as to require merely a single word to get bad things to happen.

I use the term "verifiable red flag laws" in order to guard against abuses of such laws. It is a worthy endeavor to protect the legitimate use of one's RKBA. But just breathing is an insufficient criteria alone to claim the right to possess guns. The only times we see calls for "good moral character" with respect to guns is that many states require such a limit on privilege to carry concealed weapons by permit. No such rule applies to the mere possession of guns at the Federal level. However, when a person proves to be a clear threat to self or others, then a state could step in and take those guns under a verifiable red flag law.

In our current political climate, I seriously doubt any verifiable red flag laws would get passed at the Federal level. I would, however, support such laws as long as people could get guns back after verifiable treatments and hefty time limits between the infraction and the healing. But a caveat exists: those laws have to be enforced, something that failed to take place in more than one instance. Perhaps we will see that change, and then we'll have a richer perspective from which to make cogent decisions.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

12
CDFingers wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 8:41 am
F4FEver wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2023 7:14 am
sikacz wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:16 pm At what point do we stop defending arbitrary criteria. Technically one still has the right to free speech if it was limited to one day, a specific hour and a decreed minute. It’s still exists and is functional. At what point do we say an infringement serves no purpose?
Is it infringement if the 'Yellow Flag Law' in Maine was applied properly to Card? Is it 'infringement' if a violent felon is not allowed to legally buy a firearm? Is it 'infringement' if a drug addict wants to buy a gun? Or a documented domestic abuser? 'Infringement' DOES serve useful purposes.
The right to use words and guns is an interesting contrast. One trigger pull by a deranged person can kill another person 100 meters or more away. Not so with the utterance of a single word. Therein lies our challenge.

We have seen where the orange spirochete used hundreds and hundreds of words in order to persuade some of his moronic followers to storm the Capitol and to engage in acts of stochastic terrorism across America. As he builds up the context of words, he needs fewer and fewer to get his point across. Yet he has not achieved so rich a context as to require merely a single word to get bad things to happen.

I use the term "verifiable red flag laws" in order to guard against abuses of such laws. It is a worthy endeavor to protect the legitimate use of one's RKBA. But just breathing is an insufficient criteria alone to claim the right to possess guns. The only times we see calls for "good moral character" with respect to guns is that many states require such a limit on privilege to carry concealed weapons by permit. No such rule applies to the mere possession of guns at the Federal level. However, when a person proves to be a clear threat to self or others, then a state could step in and take those guns under a verifiable red flag law.

In our current political climate, I seriously doubt any verifiable red flag laws would get passed at the Federal level. I would, however, support such laws as long as people could get guns back after verifiable treatments and hefty time limits between the infraction and the healing. But a caveat exists: those laws have to be enforced, something that failed to take place in more than one instance. Perhaps we will see that change, and then we'll have a richer perspective from which to make cogent decisions.

CDFingers
Well said.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

15
Once the Biden administration pushed for cert it seemed inevitable. The 1984 SCOTUS decision in Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council concerned the Clean Water Act. It is something that the current court might overturn as far is requiring deference to the regulatory interpretations given by federal agencies. The Chevron case was decided in 1984 and it was a unanimous decision by SCOTUS consisting of 6 justices, 3 had recused themselves. 5 of the 6 justices were appointed by Republican presidents from Eisenhower to Ford, SCOTUS has changed a lot.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

17
DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:10 am In this case, the agency benefiting from Chevron Deference would be the ATF in its effort to get around the statutory definition of machinegun.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
None of the 6 justices who decided Chevron are even alive, it was almost 40 years ago. A lot of federal agencies would be affected if Chevron is overturned, I agree that ATF is one.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

19
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:02 am It should be overturned.
Be careful what you wish for. If it would be overturned then the Oil and Gas industry' in Houston would have a field day without the regulations and rules written by the EPA. Also other agencies would be effected by the fact they hav lost the regulation power. The Labor Department couldn't write rules and regulations that affect worker safety. In fact most areas of the Federal government would be affected, and not for the good of the people.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

20
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:19 am
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:02 am It should be overturned.
Be careful what you wish for. If it would be overturned then the Oil and Gas industry' in Houston would have a field day without the regulations and rules written by the EPA. Also other agencies would be effected by the fact they hav lost the regulation power. The Labor Department couldn't write rules and regulations that affect worker safety. In fact most areas of the Federal government would be affected, and not for the good of the people.
Amen. Preach the gospel!
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

22
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 12:05 pm Legislators should make the laws just like they should have with Roe vs Wade. Give the agencies a properly written law and they won’t invent criteria or definitions that are contrary. Yes, I wish for the legislature to do its job and not leave it to courts and agencies.
Yes, a circuit judge writing for a 5th Circuit panel in VanDerStok v Garland (another thread) wrote:
It has long been said—correctly—that the law is the expression of legislative will. As such, the best evidence of the legislature’s intent is the carefully chosen words placed purposefully into the text of a statute by our duly-elected representatives. Critically, then, law-making power—the ability to transform policy into real-world obligations—lies solely with the legislative branch. Where an executive agency engages in what is, for all intents and purposes, “law-making,” the legislature is deprived of its primary function under our Constitution, and our citizens are robbed of their right to fair representation in government. This is especially true when the executive rule-turned-law criminalizes conduct without the say of the people who are subject to its penalties.
https://aboutblaw.com/bbpJ

Americans can be charged, convicted and imprisoned for violating federal rules (regulations) such as those written by ATF. There will be a lot of pressure on SCOTUS to overturn the Chevron Deference.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

23
sikacz wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 10:11 am
NonServiam wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2023 8:53 am If the ban holds they're going to have to find a way to also ban people from possessing the knowledge of how to bump fire without a bump stock. Good luck forcing people to unlearn stuff.
Agree, belt loop hold is going to be hard unlearn and even harder to ban.
What a senile old gas bag....trump..

There, said it for ya....

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

24
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:19 am
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:02 am It should be overturned.
Be careful what you wish for. If it would be overturned then the Oil and Gas industry' in Houston would have a field day without the regulations and rules written by the EPA. Also other agencies would be effected by the fact they hav lost the regulation power. The Labor Department couldn't write rules and regulations that affect worker safety. In fact most areas of the Federal government would be affected, and not for the good of the people.
There's a difference between allowing regulatory agencies to interpret law, as written, and allowing them to redefine terms within that law so they can effectively make new law. The administrative state, having grown massively over decades, is not going anywhere, even if Chevron goes away. Chevron never should have been the crutch on which regulatory agencies relied.

Also, before it comes up, claims that Congress won't do anything are not an excuse to cede lawmaking power to regulatory agencies controlled by the executive branch. That's not how our government was intended to work.

Re: "Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’"

25
DispositionMatrix wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:59 am
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:19 am
sikacz wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:02 am It should be overturned.
Be careful what you wish for. If it would be overturned then the Oil and Gas industry' in Houston would have a field day without the regulations and rules written by the EPA. Also other agencies would be effected by the fact they hav lost the regulation power. The Labor Department couldn't write rules and regulations that affect worker safety. In fact most areas of the Federal government would be affected, and not for the good of the people.
There's a difference between allowing regulatory agencies to interpret law, as written, and allowing them to redefine terms within that law so they can effectively make new law. The administrative state, having grown massively over decades, is not going anywhere, even if Chevron goes away. Chevron never should have been the crutch on which regulatory agencies relied.

Also, before it comes up, claims that Congress won't do anything are not an excuse to cede lawmaking power to regulatory agencies controlled by the executive branch. That's not how our government was intended to work.
Agree. The problem of course is the legislature as part of our government needs to work and not defer responsibility and work to agencies. As you noted, the work of agencies should be clear from the legislation.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests