Supreme Court rejects challenges to bump stock ban

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Associated Press, via CBS News

POLITICS

Supreme Court rejects challenges to bump stock ban

OCTOBER 3, 2022 / 10:27 AM / AP

The Supreme Court said Monday it won't take up two cases that involved challenges to a ban enacted during the Trump administration on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.

The justices' decision not to hear the cases comes on the heels of a decision in June in which the justices by a 6-3 vote expanded gun-possession rights, weakening states' ability to limit the carrying of guns in public.

The cases the justices declined to hear were an appeal from a Utah gun rights advocate and another brought by the gun rights group Gun Owners of America and others. As is typical the justices made no comments in declining to hear the cases and they were among many the court rejected Monday, the first day of the court's new term.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-bump-stock-ban-cases/

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. Good!!!!

There is absolutely no reason for ANYONE to have those bump stocks and, although surprising, given the RW majority, this is the correct decision.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. Agree it's great news, but still wonder if the motivation was not to overrule Trump (nt)

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. Quite possible,

but the Supremes aren't afraid to overrule Benedict Donald, as witnessed when they refused to take up any of his bogus voter fraud lawsuits.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

8. Fair enough :) nt

[PatSeg]

5. Or if it is to soften some other decision

coming up in the near future. It is hard to trust this court these days.

[onenote]

9. Not at all likely that they were motivated by a desire to uphold a Trump rule.

Consider the history of the case.

The rule initially upheld by a GWB named district court judge
A three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit then reversed the district court judge by a 2-1 vote, with a Trump and GHWB judge making up the majority, and GWB judge in dissent.
The full Sixth Circuit then voted to rehear the case and divided evenly, 8-8; the effect of that split vote was to reinstate the district court decision upholding the rule. The votes on whether to uphold the rule broke out as follows: in favor of upholding the rule -- 3 GWB judges, 3 Clinton judges, 2 Obama judges; voting to strike down the rule: 5 Trump judges, 2 GWB judges, and 1 GHWB judge.

In short, the Trump judges were the ones who wanted to strike down the Trump rule.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

10. Thanks for the info :) nt

[maxsolomon]

2. OMG TYRANNY

It clearly says no 'fringements!

[TigressDem]

6. NRA, we ain't yo bit**es any mo. nt

[oldsoftie]

7. Good. The 2nd doesnt apply; its NOT a gun. Its just a "thing" & can be banned.

[SouthernDem4ever]

11. So can guns

all one has to do is make the term "well regulated militia" apply only to State and Federal Police, National Guard and the Military. The rest is just NRA bullshit.

[onenote]

12. That's not the argument in this case.

In fact, in a sense, the argument in this case is exactly the opposite.

Machineguns have been regulated for a long time. Specifically, the National Firearms Act defines a “machinegun” as “any 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.” Since 1968, the term has also been defined to encompass parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machinegun.

When the assault weapons ban expired, the government received number of requests for the classification of certain devices that would permit shooters to use semi-automatic rifles to replicate automatic fire, but without converting them into "machine-guns."

Along the way, bump stocks were interpreted as not falling within the definition of machine-gun, so they were legal. But after the Las Vegas mass shooting, the government reconsidered its interpretation of the machine-gun definition and decided that a bump stock fell within the definition of a machine gun.

The court case in question didn't turn on any 2nd amendment arguments. It was a administrative law question regarding the decision to revisit and revise the interpretation of the term machine-gun as applied to bump stocks. In a sense, had the government argued that bumpstocks weren't a "gun" they would have undermined the case for bringing them within the definition of a regulated machine gun.

[truthisfreedom]

13. This is very simple. No company should be allowed

To manufacture and sell any device that makes any weapon significantly LESS ACCURATE.