Supreme Court Back-and-Forth on Bump Stocks Creates Nail-Biter Anticipation
Donald Trump's Bump Stock Ban is Having a Negative Domino Effect on All Gun Ownership.



February 29, 2024
By David Codrea for FIREARMS NEWS

The questions and arguments weren’t going as some had envisioned in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday in Garland v. Cargill, the much-anticipated bump stock case. At the end of the day, the best word to describe the court was “divided,” and the outcome for gun owners was uncertain.  

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher argued on behalf of the government and Johnathan F. Mitchell represented gun store owner and respondent Michael Cargill.  It was not the slam dunk some YouTube “gunfluencers” had been priming their followers into believing the case would be, with further hopes that, when won, they’d have a beachhead from which victories against other ATF rules, notably on frames and receivers, and on pistol stabilizing braces, would be launched. Precedent would be made.  

Common sense tells us that bump stocks are not machineguns. But so many technical questions by supposedly “conservative” justices, left gun owners wondering at the end of the day if any would betray them, and if so, how many. And that has political implications. After all, the bump stock ban was ultimately Donald Trump’s baby. And the major appeal he has gun owners in November is their counting on his appointment of “Second Amendment-friendly” justices.  

Inarguably, Trumps picks during his first term, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, are “better” than the Democrat loyalists on the bench. It goes without saying that Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Kenji Brown Jackson will favor the government’s side, and Jackson showed her understanding when she opined, “The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.” (Yes, she actually said that.)  
This pretty much defined the day. Those expecting a Second Amendment defense decrying Chevron deference overreach instead heard the justices trying to grasp competing definitions of “function of a trigger” along with scenarios unlikely to persuade judges who equate “common use” with widespread commercial popularity.  

After attorney Jonathan Mitchell suggested bump stocks might help someone with a medical condition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Why would even a person with arthritis, why would Congress think they needed to shoot 400 to 7- or 800 rounds of ammunition under any circumstance?"

There were no other arguments to introduce…? Really?

“We don't think function of the trigger means movement of the trigger.  We think it means act of the shooter,” Brian Fletcher asserted. “That's how it was used at the time … including the president of the NRA when he proposed the language that became this statute to Congress.”  He meant Karl Frederick, NRA president in 1934 testifying to Congress on the National Firearms Act, who was proud to help pass Washington DC’s strict gun laws and also endorsed, among other things, prohibition on concealed carry without a justifiable need license, waiting periods, turning lists of purchasers over to police, and more.   “The problem with the government's argument… is that the phrase ‘single function of the trigger’ can only be construed grammatically to focus on the trigger's function and not on what the shooter does to the trigger,” attorney Mitchell insisted. “The trigger is the device that initiates the firing of the weapon. A bump stock does not change the trigger in any way.  It does not alter the nature of the trigger… a bump stock equipped rifle can fire only one shot per function of the trigger because the trigger must reset after every shot and must function again before another shot can be fired.”  

This was the crux of the proceedings, but there were other telling statements made by the “friendly” judges that raised concerns.  

Justice Thomas seemed interested in comparing how a bump stock works as compared to an M16. At times, he either was having doubts or playing devil’s advocate, asking “why we shouldn’t look at a broader definition” due to “carnage” from machineguns during Prohibition.  

Chief Justice Roberts questioned where and how you place your hands, and later asked “I think we -you would agree that the bump stock accelerates the rate of fire? Why wouldn't you then take the further step of saying it changes the nature of the trigger in doing that?”  

In addition to technical questions, Justice Barret added “I think the question is, why didn't Congress pass that litigation --I mean that legislation to --to make this cover it more clearly?”  “I can certainly understand why these items should be made illegal, but we're dealing with a statute that was enacted in the 1930s, and through many administrations, the government took the position that these bump stocks are not machineguns,” Justice Gorsuch offered, then expressing concerns that this interpretive rule “ would render between a quarter of a million and a half million people federal felons and not even through an APA process they could challenge.”  Justice Kavanaugh followed up on Gorsuch’s concerns that people unaware of the prohibition could be convicted, and questioned the grammar, saying “people don't function things.   They may pull things, they may throw things, but they don't function things.”  

“What is the situation of people who have possessed bump stocks between the time of the ATF's new rule and the present day or between the time of the new rule and the Fifth Circuit decision?” Justice Alito asked.  “Can they be prosecuted?” (Bottom line: Yes.)  

“Why isn't the function of the trigger to release the hammer from the sear so that the hammer can swing forward and strike?” he asked. “Isn't that the most straightforward interpretation of this?” He later asked the question that goes to the heart of the argument that this is the purview of Congress, not of ATF: “Can you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machineguns, but we should not ban bump stocks?  Is there any reason why a legislator might reach that judgment?”  

Now we wait and see what the Court decides. What’s clear though, even if they don’t disappoint us on this decision, is that their view of the Second Amendment, particularly Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, and Barrett, and probably Roberts, who has let us down before, does not extend to a militia of the whole people entitled to arms in common use at the time by the same militaries the Constitution expects them to prevail over. As for their deference to gun bans being legitimate if enacted by Congress instead of ATF, “shall not be infringed” makes no exceptions for legislators.  

They’re arguing over minutiae, over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Trigger function doesn’t matter, we the people are entitled to have arms as our birthright, including Justice Thomas’s M16 and more, what Tench Coxe called “every terrible implement of the soldier.” And no branch of government has the legitimate delegated Constitutional authority to say otherwise.  

What’s also clear is that unless the court is shored up with more justices who understand that, this court is not ready to take on repeal of the Hughes Amendment or the NFA itself, and bans or “redefined” classifications on semiautos, new transfer bans, tax stamp spikes, magazine capacity bans, and more, are just a Democrat sweep away.  
 
EDITOR’S NOTE: The US Supreme Court is not in agreement with the Founding Fathers on why citizens are to own military weapons (or even semi-auto rifles), and because of that, gun owners, gun organizations, and 2nd Amendment attorneys should expect and prepare legal strategies for court losses. As long as Second Amendment activists, as well as conservative politicians, use defenses for ownership such as gun collecting, “fun shooting”, or only self-defense against robbers and rapists, states will continue to ban semi-auto firearms and their accessories. There is now a real threat that even registered transferable machinegun ownership will be further restricted or possibly ended altogether. The Founders wanted the citizenry to possess military weapons as a defense against foreign invasion and possible tyranny imposed by their own government which history shows us often results in loss of liberty and genocide – that is the purpose of the Second Amendment (which is a government-recognized God-given right), not just for defense against common criminals. It is nonsensical for any politician, judge, or even 2A advocate to say, “The Second Amendment was put in place as a civilian defense against tyranny.” and then in the same breath state, “But, machine guns and other dangerous military weapons should be banned from civilian ownership.” If the Founders didn’t want the citizenry to own the same weapons as the military, they would have restricted them to crossbows and catapults instead of muskets and cannons (the most modern weapons available at the time), no such restriction was ever put in place by them. History hasn’t changed. Human nature hasn’t changed.


Original article here.

Best President Ever

How now, cultists?

I stopped here. If I want to read biased bullshit, I'll go to a URK thread.

You're right.  It would have been far better for America had Hillary Klinton won.

Fuck Tulsi Gabbard. She said anti gun things before.......

Mr. “Due process later” fucked us on silencers, too. I just got mine approved after a 20 month wait.

OP is right, we should have voted for Hillary.

Saw that coming.

It’s all so tiresome…

This is just shaping up to be a fabulous year for our 2A rights, not to mention the rest of our rights.

Did I miss the SCOTUS ruling or something?

And we're back to "sorry your girl lost." Maybe instead of coping you can say your guy isn't perfect and he made mistakes. It's going to be hard. But intellectual honesty is important if you want people to take you seriously.

Better than Lincoln, better than Washington.

"Gunfluencers"?

opinion discarded

Ever president is better than Lincoln.

Lots of people on here have said Trump isn’t perfect.  You’re gonna have to be more specific to the evil MAGA extremist who keeps you up at night, crying into your pillow.

Get back to us when you can find the bumpstock law he signed.

Trump talks. The ATF overreaches.

Think this community would realize that by now.

Retard level post right there.

Oh man. I got a lot of you to tell me you don't like him a couple weeks ago. That was way better than saying he isn't perfect. You're going to have to try harder. Although I know you're trying really hard already.

3D chess m' fers!

I knew that any further regulation or negative action on the 2nd Amendment (including bumpstocks) would end up being a horrible thing for the 2nd Amendment. It was retarded for Trump to do what he did and it's going to end up hurting us.

He didn't sign a law. He told the ATF to ban them without any legislation.
You do see how that's even worse right?

That was his administration. I was here for all of it.

Still not sorry YOUR GIRL LOST.

“I can certainly understand why these items should be made illegal..." - SCJ Gorsuch

Fixed your typo.

You're welcome.

Embarrassing.

I don't remember the NRA being elected President, or having any control whatsoever over any branch of government.

Guess I just missed that part.

Irrelevant. She didn't so we'll never know...

"But trust me bro, it's just a stupid gun accessory. I never even owned one. It's just a plastic toy. Banning them doesn't hurt anyone or change anything. It won't set a precedent. Trust me, bro, he's pro-gun. He's gonna set up a Second Amendment Coalition."

The lawyer for our side was bad.

He should have stuck to Bruen and Heller. Instead he got bogged down into a this or that technical argument and didn't cover a number of other arguments.

4 boxes diner guy covered it.

Under Bruen the NFA is unconstitutional. Therefore bans on bump stocks are unconstitutional.

The bump stock ban isn't the bad part. They're using the logic and precedent to go after braces, and likely other things. They can make some leaps and bounds, like regulating AR/AK pistols as rifles. Technically they are rifles without stocks, but legally they are pistols. I can see the ATF re-interpreting something down the line and then AR/AK pistols would be regulated like rifles. 922r, import bans, etc.

And that is why this case is important. Will be interesting to see how it goes. I can see the USSC wanting to keep bump stocks banned, but also wanting to smack down the ATF.

Take your revisionist bullshit somewhere else.

"he chastised some in attendance for being too "afraid" of the National Rifle Association to take action"
Trump seemed to side against not just his conservative counterparts but the NRA
"he said Wednesday, when he promised to "essentially, write [bump stocks] out" with an executive order, instructing lawmakers that they won't have to include the measure in future gun and school safety legislation coming out of the Hill. "The lawyers" are working on this executive order "right now," he said.

"Shortly," Trump assured of bump stocks, "that'll be gone."

The move comes just over a week after Trump directed his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to propose regulations that ban bump stocks
Trump called the new regulations "critical"
"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said, responding to a suggestion from Pence to "allow due process" but give law enforcement officials the "ability to go to court, obtain an order" to disarm the individual.

"Although the Obama administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess

Well for God's sakes we better not make the same mistake twice and vote for Trump.  Be sure and re-elect Biden so that we don't have to worry about 2nd ammendment violations or attacks on other civil liberties like free speech.  Biden is here for us.

Lots of obtuse dimwits here that sound like the left.
GD: "Trump wasn't perfect  and fucked this specific thing up"

ONLY trump  cult autist:
REEEE HERP-DURRR SORRY YER GIRL LOST REEEEEE!!!
REEEE VOTE FOR BIDEN REEEE.

Quote History

But he brought up people with arthritis wanting to shoot fast - that is much more important than the ban being unconstitutional because the Founders intended citizens to have the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government...

Yup. And that's why we some of us warned everyone years ago how bad this is, whether or not you own a bumpstock (I don't).

If you all backed Cruz like I did none of this would be happening.

There is a cure my man, vote Biden!

You guys are smart and have fully convinced me to back Biden.  At least he didn't ban bumpstocks

Amy will sell us out.

Who says I didn't back Cruz?  At the end of the day,  my only choices were Trump or Klinton. What should I have done? Vote Klinton?  I mean that's what this is about right?

I don't like any of the candidates from the last 30 years or more. None of them have been conservative enough to excite me. They have all been too liberal.

You left out Reagan

Literally nobody is advocating for that.