National Bump stock ban upheld

[wired]

Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban

The Trump administration imposed the ban after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

www.nbcnews.com

Read More

 

[arakboss]

Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban

The Trump administration imposed the ban after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

www.nbcnews.com

Doesn't bode well for any action on braces. Sad.

 

[wired]

Doesn't bode well for any action on braces. Sad.

Yep. You win some you lose some.

 

[Yarome]

Doesn't bode well for any action on braces. Sad.

I dunno. Altering the semi-auto function of a firearm to mimic that closer to a MG (aka dangerous device) is a bit different than an SBR, IMHO. An SBR is no more "dangerous" than any other semi auto pistol/rifle in the same calibers. SBR's are also argueably an error addition to the NFA and unintentional effect. The foundation of which is now a relic perception in history past. IOW, no longer applicable in modern times.

I wouldn't bet on it, but I'm not writing it off as hopeless just yet.

 

[Loc]

I dunno. Altering the semi-auto function of a firearm to mimic that closer to a MG (aka dangerous device) is a bit different than an SBR, IMHO. An SBR is no more "dangerous" than any other semi auto pistol/rifle in the same calibers. SBR's are also argueably an error addition to the NFA and unintentional effect. The foundation of which is now a relic perception in history past. IOW, no longer applicable in modern times.

I wouldn't bet on it, but I'm not writing it off as hopeless just yet.

Excellent points @Yarome . What it doesn't bode well for is FRTs and the like...

 

[fmvolume86]

this is getting ridiculous, because it goes against the Bruen decision. Agency can't just make up their own definitions.

 

[wired]

this is getting ridiculous, because it goes against the Bruen decision. Agency can't just make up their own definitions.

The only thing thats going to rescue this situation is the courts. They have been unwilling to touch machineguns or anything that smells like a machinegun and if you look at the majority and minority decisions over the last few supposedly pro gun cases even going back to Scalias opinions in DC v Heller they are always of the opinion that machineguns NEED to be and CAN be regulated. They are not seeing the difference between a real machine gun and a bumpstock.

 

[solv3nt]

It's interesting, they just ruled against the EPA for doing the same thing.

 

[ma96782]

I didn't see it mentioned in the linked article......

So.......what was the Supreme Court's decision about compensation to the owners of the NOW ILLEGAL stocks?

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

In light of the Bruen decision.

Aloha, Mark

 

[solv3nt]

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It could be that Scotus doesn't take the cases that are not a clear infringement of the right to self defense using guns in "common use" (miller).

From a quick skim of Heller 2008 case it looks to me like scotus doesn't want to get into the specifics of one type of gun or another etc. But in the case where a whole category of guns in common use (handguns in the case of Heller) is restricted, the 2A right is restricted.

Heller is worth reading Imo but it takes a while (I did not read it all just skimmed most of it). The biggest thing Imo is to not "cherry pick" passages from the ruling. For example they reference miller common use but also say it may well be that to have an effective militia unusual guns may have to be used. So we have to look at the whole thing and not cherry pick certain passages.

Both Heller and the recent Bruen ruling deal with a jurisdiction broadly restricting the right to bear arms in common use. It looks to me like Scotus is going to be selective in what 2A cases they take. Bump stocks, FRT, and similar don't seem to fit that kind of broad restriction of arms in common use.

But broad restrictions of semi autos?, ARs, and magazines? Sure seems to me those are in common use on a huge scale and restricting those would restrict the right. But just IMO based on a single quick skim of Heller 2008.

Here is the Heller ruling fyi:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[nehalemguy]

As the saying goes.....not every hill is worth dying on.

The SCOTUS looked at this one and passed. It is after all, an accessory, and a gimmicky one at that. We have bigger battles to fight.

-E-

 

[Yarome]

One thing to remember too though is the bump stock case was not a bruen case. They where not challenging it as a 2A infringment but rather an EPA ruling case that the alphabet was overstepping their authority to reclassify the component and expanding the definition of a MG.... clearly established by congress.

Regardless, it's disappointing since it clearly does fall in the realm of over-reach, and by not taking it up, pretty much gives the alphabet the go ahead to continue to redefine law as they see fit.

I may get flamed, but I can see where it might be a component the SC may not be too excited to address due to political backlash. It's not technically a MG, but it does make it possible to mimic similar affect to a MG through other means.

That doesn't change the fact it's, legally, an overstep of authority. If they want to change the law then do it the right way... through congress.. and I'm fairly confident the definition modification would likely pass.

 

[wired]

Im pretty sure that if a bumpstock bill were to get to Congress , probably buried in something else , it wouldn't be in the way we want it to be.

 

[s1xty7]

Did SCOTUS refuse the case because the person that pushed for the ban (President Trump) is the person that put the conservative justices in control? I know this appointment is for life and politics shouldn't play a role in our personal freedoms, but I do wonder if that contributed to their decision.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Supreme Court:

"Bang...Bang...Bang...Bang seems OK, but BamgBangBangBangBang is scary and not OK. So, we'll rule against Chevron Deference when the subject at hand is not scary, and just ignore any scary cases so we don't come off like the hypocrites we actually are."

 

[wired]

Anyone who expected consistency and that recent court rulings were going to overturn the NFA is getting a dosse of reality. Someone told me they were optimistic that the Congress was going to throw out the coming brace conversion to SBR's the other day because a bill had been introduced . I'm like you mean you think thats going to sail through a Democratic controlled Congress and get signed by Joe Biden? Really?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I look at scotus as analogous to a company ceo, they provide strategic direction and correct things when they really go wrong, but they leave management of the company to the managers.

Fe scotus told lower courts to stop using the two step process. Frt, bump stock, and others is not a common use item that would have restricted the rights of a lot of citizens for self defense.

I say this largely due to how many 2A cases they have accepted. How many total 2A cases have they heard since 1900? Less than 10 I would guess (I'm not sure but I know it's a small number). That fact alone means TONS of worthy 2A cases will not be heard. It's only the big ones that give strategic direction to the courts below or big effect on 2A rights for lots of poeple using guns in common use. At least that's how it seems to me.

 

[wired]

I look at scotus as analogous to a company ceo, they provide strategic direction and correct things when they really go wrong, but they leave management of the company to the managers.

Fe scotus told lower courts to stop using the two step process. Frt, bump stock, and others is not a common use item that would have restricted the rights of a lot of citizens for self defense.

I say this largely due to how many 2A cases they have accepted. How many total 2A cases have they heard since 1900? Less than 10 I would guess (I'm not sure but I know it's a small number).

"We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation."
George Washington