{"id":2267975,"date":"2024-06-14T14:45:02","date_gmt":"2024-06-14T18:45:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-rules-bump-stock-ban-unlawful\/"},"modified":"2024-06-14T14:47:41","modified_gmt":"2024-06-14T18:47:41","slug":"supreme-court-rules-bump-stock-ban-unlawful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-rules-bump-stock-ban-unlawful\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">14<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-rules-bump-stock-ban-unlawful%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2267975&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme RuCourt ruled 6-3 to overturn a policy from the Trump administration which banned bump stocks for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-to-congress-enact-major-restrictions-on-constitutionally-protected-second-amendment-rights\/\" title=\"Biden To Congress: Enact Major Restrictions On Constitutionally Protected Second Amendment Rights\">semi-automatic firearms<\/a>.\u2064 The court decided that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had exceeded its\u2063 authority with this ban. This policy was initially implemented in response to the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, viewing bump stocks as devices \u2062that convert semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic\u2062 ones. Owners \u2063of bump\u200d stocks were given 90 days to destroy or surrender them, marking what was described as one\u200b of the most comprehensive \u200cfederal gun control efforts since the 1994 assault weapons ban.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court clarified that bump \u2063stocks do not transform a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/illinois-supreme-court-endorses-states-ban-on-semiautomatic-guns\/\" title=\"Illinois Supreme Court supports ban on semiautomatic firearms.\">semi-automatic \u2064firearm<\/a> into \u200ca &#8220;machine gun&#8221; as defined under federal law because they require the trigger to be manually engaged for each shot, even though they allow rapid firing. The ATF&#8217;s stance that \u2063bump stocks allow a shooter to fire multiple rounds with\u200b a single trigger pull was rejected by the court. The\u2062 ruling \u200cemphasized that bump stocks do not modify\u2064 the \u2063fundamental operation of a \u2064firearm but merely enable faster trigger re-engagement. \u200cThus, bump stocks do not meet the legal definition of a machine gun, \u2063which involves\u200d firing multiple rounds automatically \u2064by a single function of the trigger without manual reloading.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday to overturn a Trump-era policy banning bump stocks for semi-automatic firearms, arguing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) exceeded its authority.<\/p>\n<p>The Trump administration\u2019s ATF created the regulation 14 months after the deadliest U.S. mass shooting took place in 2017 at a country music festival in Las Vegas. The regulation reversed previous ATF policy that stated a semi-automatic firearm with a bump stock does not constitute a fully automatic firearm or machine gun. The Trump administration, alongside others, argued bump stocks \u201cillegally convert semi-automatic rifles \u2026 into <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-comprehensive-case-against-gun-control\/\" title=\"The Comprehensive Case Against Gun Control\">fully automatic machine guns<\/a>,\u201d The Federalist\u2019s founder Sean Davis <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2018\/12\/19\/trump-administrations-new-bump-stock-ban-legal-abomination\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">explained<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1497437819\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2e333497706ea4f99af7b6db116ac0be fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-2e333497706ea4f99af7b6db116ac0be\"><\/div>\n<p>Upon implementation of the rule, anyone who owned bump stocks had 90 days to either destroy them or surrender them to the government in what represented \u201cthe most sweeping federal gun control effort since the so<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/congressman-jamie-raskin-wants-to-tax-your-guns-if-he-cant-ban-them\/\" title=\"Congressman Jamie Raskin Wants To Tax Your Guns If He Can\u2019t Ban Them\">-called assault weapons ban<\/a>, which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2003,\u201d Davis <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2018\/12\/19\/trump-administrations-new-bump-stock-ban-legal-abomination\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-976_e29g.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">high court struck down<\/a> the rule, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority.<\/p>\n<p>Michael Cargill, who was forced to surrender two bump stocks after the ban went into effect, argued the ATF lacked the statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act to create the rule because under federal law, bump stocks are not \u201cmachineguns.\u201d The Supreme Court affirmed that the ATF lacked the authority to create the rule since. A Court of Appeals similarly affirmed this decision prior to the case heading to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>The Court began by acknowledging a bump stock simply uses the recoil energy to increase the rate of fire but \u201cdoes not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing, and the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,\u201d therefore not violating the 1934 National Firearms Act definition of a \u201cmachinegun.\u201d <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1bb259a2b5ade8e5645dc4180b9fd7d5 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1bb259a2b5ade8e5645dc4180b9fd7d5\"><\/div>\n<p>\u201cThis case asks whether a bump stock \u2014 an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) \u2014 converts the rifle into a \u2018machinegun.\u2019 We hold that it does not and therefore affirm,\u201d the Court ruled.<\/p>\n<p>The current federal definition for a \u201cmachinegun\u201d states, in part:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201cAny weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The Supreme Court wrote that adding a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm to a \u201cmachine gun\u201d under current law because \u201cit cannot fire more than one shot \u2018by a single function of the trigger\u2019 and even if it could, it would not do so \u2018automatically.&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock,\u201d the Court held. \u201cBetween every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate \u2018functions\u2019 of the trigger.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-d6e57d15afbf8f86b23673bf3585bb3e fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-d6e57d15afbf8f86b23673bf3585bb3e\"><\/div>\n<p>The court also slapped down the ATF\u2019s argument that a bump stock allows an individual to fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary trigger,\u201d the ruling states, \u201cMoreover, ATF\u2019s position is logically inconsistent because its reasoning would also mean that a semiautomatic rifle <em>without<\/em> a bump stock is capable of firing more than one shot by a \u2018single function of the trigger.\u2019 Yet, ATF agrees that is not the case. ATF\u2019s argument is thus at odds with itself.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Court cited a 2017 rule from the ATF in which it explained a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun because \u201cforward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward handguard \u2026 [and] to fire each shot, each succeeding shot fir[es] with a single trigger function.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Thomas also condemned the minority\u2019s dissent for trying to \u201crewrite\u201d text under the auspices of what they speculate Congress may have done at the time the law was written.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cCongress could have linked the definition of \u2018machinegun\u2019 to a weapon\u2019s rate of fire, as the dissent would prefer. But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot \u2018automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.\u2019 And, \u2018it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion but left the door open for Congress to \u201cact\u201d and ban bump stocks. The Las Vegas shooting, Alito wrote, showed that \u201ca semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending [federal law]. But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law\u2019s meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Notably, the ruling does not determine whether a Congressional ban on bump stocks would violate the Second Amendment \u2014 just whether or not the ATF\u2019s process for banning the accessory was lawful.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-8d0a5d7669f0e00dca56042eda04978e fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-8d0a5d7669f0e00dca56042eda04978e\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a Trump-era ban on bump stocks for semi-automatic firearms on Friday. The court stated that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority with the regulation, which was established 14 months after the 2017 mass shooting at a country music festival<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":2267976,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/5810753486_7788b6be70_k-e1718382351108.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2267975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/5810753486_7788b6be70_k-e1718382351108.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2267975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2267975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2267975\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2267976"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2267975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2267975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2267975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}