Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban

[5pins]

Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban


Supreme Court rejects gun rights challenge to bump stocks ban (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rejects-gun-rights-challenge-to-bump-stocks-ban/ar-AA12xDuR)


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a new effort to expand gun rights by declining to hear a challenge to a Trump-era ban on so-called bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly.
The decision not to hear the two related cases, a blow for gun rights activists, leaves the ban in place. The conservative-majority court issued a major ruling in June that expanded gun rights, although the legal issues in the bump stock cases were different.

[HeavyDuty]

Color me unaffected.

[4RNR]

Why ultimately 2A is meaningless. ^

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

I respect the Court’s decision. I think this is the most impartial SCOTUS in my lifetime. I want them to rule on the law, and if they are satisfied that bump stocks fall outside 2nd Amendment protection, so be it.

I hope they rule on mag and assault weapon bans soon so we have clarity on gun rights.

[GyroF-16]

Not a bump-stock user, nor particularly a fan.
This move by SCOTUS leaves me a little concerned, though.

If I recall the situation correctly, bump-stocks are an example where, on one day, the BATF deemed them permissible (that is, not a “machinegun”). Then, on the following day, the same item was not permissible (now it is a “machinegun”).
With no new law passed by Congress.

I don’t especially care about bump-stocks, but I DO care about keeping each branch of government in their lane. And that means that the Executive Branch doesn’t get to change the law by decree.

I was hopeful that there would be successful challenges to the recent “rule makings” by the BATF regarding braced pistols “becoming” SBRs, and changing the definition of a “receiver”. Both were done without any new legislation being passed by Congress.

I’d be interested to see the issues that were brought to the court in this case. Perhaps the issue of effectively changing the law by the Executive Branch wasn’t part of the bump-stock case as presented to the court.

joshs - any insight here?

[JRB]

Frankly anything that is issued to anyone in a modern infantry unit should be protected by the 2A.

That said, I share GyroF-16's concerns regarding the ATF's apparently unfettered ability to decide what is and isn't legal. Especially after they offer specific definitions of what meets a given legal standard, the open market works around that legal definition, and results in a product the ATF decides they don't like, and they reverse themselves/change minds/shoot dogs etc & whatever else.

Having SCOTUS back the ATF's play on this sets a really ugly precedent even if bumpstocks aren't the proverbial hill to die on.

[joshs]

joshs - any insight here?

The title of the article is a bit misleading as these cases are not really about gun rights, but administrative law and separation of powers.

SCOTUS dropping these petitions is not that surprising because the Fifth Circuit agreed to en banc rehearing of another challenge to the bump fire stock regulation in June. The Court likely decided to wait and see what the Fifth Circuit does with that case (they can always take a petition from that case if they think it is wrongly decided).

[GyroF-16]

The title of the article is a bit misleading as these cases are not really about gun rights, but administrative law and separation of powers.

SCOTUS dropping these petitions is not that surprising because the Fifth Circuit agreed to en banc rehearing of another challenge to the bump fire stock regulation in June. The Court likely decided to wait and see what the Fifth Circuit does with that case (they can always take a petition from that case if they think it is wrongly decided).

Thanks, joshs. So it sounds like the issue IS what I was describing, and there’s a good reason that SCOTUS declined to hear the case (yet).

Sure appreciate your contributions here, BTW.

[5pins]

The 5th En Banc hearing was on the 13th of last month. Here is a recording of the oral arguments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5kP1_E2DaY

[TGS]

Having SCOTUS back the ATF's play on this sets a really ugly precedent even if bumpstocks aren't the proverbial hill to die on.

SCOTUS did not "back the ATF's play". They made no ruling one way or the other. They refused to hear the case, which SCOTUS does to 99.2% of cases presented to them for various reasons, which is not the same as passing judgement on a given issue.

[JRB]

SCOTUS did not "back the ATF's play". They made no ruling one way or the other. They refused to hear the case, which SCOTUS does to 99.2% of cases presented to them for various reasons, which is not the same as passing judgement on a given issue.

As was clearly stated in the link and the posts above yours. I'd have edited my post but it was outside the window by the time I actually got to read any of the linked articles.

My concern stands about SCOTUS -yes, Backing the ATF's play- on their apparent preferred interpretation of a law is the law itself.

IF that happens. Of course.

Do you acknowledge that as a valid concern?

[TGS]

Do you acknowledge that as a valid concern?

No, not really. While the whole thing is a bit of a clown show, I don't see this as a slippery slope. This does not give the ATF "unfettered ability to decide what is and isn't legal", as you put it. Nothing is changing. The executive branch has been exercising regulatory powers of interpretation for a while and with SCOTUS precedent upholding such. It might be nice to see a "once and done" mandate upon the executive in terms of regulatory decisions, as in, once they say it isn't an NFA item then they have to be held to that unless Congress makes a law to say otherwise....but I don't see this snowballing into some greater RKBA issue, nor is anything that's happening running afoul of our constitutional protections of ex post facto.

[4RNR]

, nor is anything that's happening running afoul of our constitutional protections of ex post facto.

And that's the way to get around 2A. As is the attempt now (broadly speaking). Change definitions, sue companies out of business, shame banks into stopping lending money to the firearms industry, create protected safe spaces everywhere, close FFLs for spelling errors, etc.....you can have a gun! We can't help it if there's no one to make it or sell it to you! Go 2A!!

Here's an idea I'm sure someone over there thought of. Technically speaking the gun is the receiver....by law. That's the firearm. You don't need scary handguards with speed holes to mount deadly optics. A stock just makes you a bigger killer. In fact a barrel is nothing but an accessory.... technically speaking.

Remember your grandpas hunting rifle is still a deadly sniper rifle capable of killing kids from miles away and no one needs that kind of weapon. It's just common sense!

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm concerned about the general problem of moral panic causing the executive branch to use different mechanisms to ban items either directly or through some agencies abilities. According to some Trump and Congress were ready to ban all semis after Las Vegas. They were diverted to the Bump ban by the NRA.

Tin foil hat - so some nut modifies a Glock to full auto (as discussed here). There is a massacre in a school, house of worship, etc. Given the Glock is easily modified - they are declared "Machine Guns". A president not scared of the NRA or wanting to give Nancy and Diane what they want pushes for some mechanism in the executive branch to take down the guns. The nuances discussed of why we shouldn't worry about Scotus not dealing with this, do not assure me.

It seems Scotus, supposedly RKBA friendly, dances around clear defense of the 2A for playing in the legal weeds. Bruen certainly didn't do any good in NYS on DA STREETZ level as it will take years to unravel (if at all) the restrictions of the CCIA. While Clarence's prose is defended, I'm of the view of Dave Kopel that the decision had dangerous flaws along with some of the statements from Alito and Kavanaugh, again mentioning acceptable restrictions. Those in the real world negate practical gun rights.

That Bruen has side effects like getting rid of ghost gun restrictions in some other state - WHO CARES? It's a trivial issue is carry is impossible.

[TGS]

I'm concerned about the general problem of moral panic causing the executive branch to use different mechanisms to ban items either directly or through some agencies abilities. According to some Trump and Congress were ready to ban all semis after Las Vegas. They were diverted to the Bump ban by the NRA.

Tin foil hat - so some nut modifies a Glock to full auto (as discussed here). There is a massacre in a school, house of worship, etc. Given the Glock is easily modified - they are declared "Machine Guns".

That's not how the law works, and the wording of the law wouldn't support such to happen. This isn't a nuance....it's pretty basic stuff.

AR15s in general are not banned because of the Las Vegas shooter and bump stocks....bump stocks are now an NFA item because they are deemed as a full auto conversion device. Same as a Glock switch. The switch is regulated, not the gun that the device converts.

See auto sears for HKs. Like the Glock switch, the sear pack is the registered machine gun part as it converts the gun...all roller locked HKs using the common pattern HK91/93/89 lower which accepts that sear are not NFA items because of that.

What happened here is if the ATF had first said, "nah, those Glock switches aren't a full auto conversion, have fun" and then a couple years later said, "hey, so yeah, about those switches...yeah, they're machine gun conversions, so you need to give them up". The Glocks would still be legal to own, just not the conversion part...and when you step out of the hypothetical and back into reality, that is exactly what has already occured.

The legal mechanism which allows the ATF to classify something as a machine gun conversion has already been applied to Glocks. Yet, you're still able to own a Glock. Why? Because the Glock is not the machine gun conversion, the switch is the machine gun conversion.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand all that. I'm concerned that the moral panic might cause a move to declare that a gun that has the easy potential to be modified will be declared to be a threat or a machine gun by a future president or Congress. A bit of legislation or some executive order (which would be contested) might make that move. That would negate the parts argument.

One cannot easily (ahem) make a lever action gun or bolt action gun full auto (WWI experts - I know). So they are just fine for Uncle Dick is his deer blind. Something that can become full auto - OMG.

Why should people be allowed to have a gun that can be so modified? That will be the issue. Thus, the bump precedent worries me. While I don't see the USA easily going to the Australian, NZ or UK bans - that could happen. The ease of modification would be a way to ease into it. Of course, banning lever actions would be next as would be pump guns.

Yes, there would be resistance and lack of compliance but guns buried in the woods are effectively banned from usage.

[TGS]

I understand all that. I'm concerned that the moral panic might cause a move to declare that a gun that has the easy potential to be modified will be declared to be a threat or a machine gun by a future president or Congress. A bit of legislation or some executive order (which would be contested) might make that move.

Why should people be allowed to have a gun that can be so modified? That will be the issue. Thus, the bump precedent worries me. While I don't see the USA easily going to the Australian, NZ or UK bans - that could happen. The ease of modification would be a way to ease into it.

Yes, there would be resistance and lack of compliance but guns buried in the wood are effectively banned from usage.

"Future president or Congress" are two separate things, and two separate discussions. Your post that I was responding to specifically said "executive branch", and the executive branch ("future presidents") does not have that power. If you understood all that, then you wouldn't have written what you wrote.

If you're concerned about legislative action by Congress, that's a whole separate conversation than reclassification of semiautomatics under the NFA, since that'd be a total rewrite of the law we have operated under for close to 90 years, and is well outaide the scope of this conversation/topic.

[joshs]

That Bruen has side effects like getting rid of ghost gun restrictions in some other state - WHO CARES? It's a trivial issue is carry is impossible.

What about getting rid of carry restrictions in other states? Other than NY (and NJ is looking to adopt something similar) the other may issue states have just gotten rid of their discretionary provision to make their existing systems shall issue. We've already filed a challenge to the new NY law (as have several others). That's the remedy in our system to resolve constitutional violations.

Our system, like other representative forms of government, generally relies on elected officials to act lawfully. I'm highly skeptical that NY would have adopted a different law if Justice Thomas had written an opinion that was up to your standards. Our judicial system relies heavily on the cooperation of the other branches (and state governments). There isn't anything SCOTUS could have done to stop NY from adopting the new law.

Invalidating a law adopted by the elected representatives of a jurisdiction is a relatively unique feature of American law. It generally isn't something that judges do lightly.

[BillSWPA]

For a variety of reasons, bump stocks are not the issue we want as the basis of the next second amendment precedent. I would not be surprised if some pro-gun justices voted this one down to avoid that happening. Numerous better cases will come along.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

For a variety of reasons, bump stocks are not the issue we want as the basis of the next second amendment precedent. I would not be surprised if some pro-gun justices voted this one down to avoid that happening. Numerous better cases will come along.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Josh’s comment upthread makes the most sense here:


The title of the article is a bit misleading as these cases are not really about gun rights, but administrative law and separation of powers.

SCOTUS dropping these petitions is not that surprising because the Fifth Circuit agreed to en banc rehearing of another challenge to the bump fire stock regulation in June. The Court likely decided to wait and see what the Fifth Circuit does with that case (they can always take a petition from that case if they think it is wrongly decided).

[BillSWPA]

MA state purchase requirements appear to be on their way out.

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-controversial-massachusetts-gun-control-law

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeavyDuty]

MA state purchase requirements appear to be on their way out.

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-vacates-controversial-massachusetts-gun-control-law

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good news (potentially,) crappy headline.

[joshs]

I wouldn't read to much into grant, vacate, and remands right now. After SCOTUS issues a decision that clarifies the applicable law, it is their standard practice to give the lower courts a new shot with the new test. In the gun context, this happens all the time with the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court has issues three major ACCA decisions in the last seven years. Each time, they've remanded a bunch of ACCA cases, and many have come to the same result.

I don't think that should be the result with the Massachusetts law under a text, history, and tradition analysis, but I don't have high expectations for what the First Circuit will do.

[Dan Carey]

The Supreme Court will have to address a major 2A case sooner or later. Probably will strike down most of the gun controls as we know them.