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)

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.

[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.