https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/14/supreme-court-trump-bump-stocks-guns-decision/72957521007/WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday said devices that turn a semi-automatic rifle into something closer to a machine gun are legal, a win for gun rights advocates and a blow to efforts to reduce gun violence that has besieged the nation.The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in deciding that the federal government was wrong to classify a bump stock as a machine gun."A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the majority.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who read the liberals' dissent from the bench, said the majority used an "artificially narrow definition" to reach a conclusion that will have "deadly consequences."
'Quacks like a duck'"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck," she wrote of the effect of using a bump stock to enable a weapon to fire at rates approaching those of some machine guns.Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter GuideThe controversial devices were banned by the Trump administration after the deadliest mass shooting in the nation’s history. A gunman who used bump stocks on some of his many weapons fired at concertgoers in Las Vegas in 2017, immediately killing 58 people.But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ 2018 conclusion that bump stocks meet the legal definition of a machine gun was a reversal from past decisions.During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in February, the conservative justices – many of whom have longstanding concerns about the regulatory power of federal agencies – were troubled about the carnage the devices can cause but also wondered if the Justice Department had too broadly interpreted a firearms law.The hyper technical issue they were asked to resolve was whether a rifle with a bump stock fires more than one shot “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger.”The bump stock harnesses the recoil of the rifle to accelerate trigger pulls, technically “bumping” the trigger for each shot after it bounces off the shooter’s shoulder. A rifle can then fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute.
The justices had to decide if that means a bump stock allows the weapon to be continually fired once the shooter depresses the trigger or if the trigger is reactivated by the shooter between every shot.The majority said firing multiple shots with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger because the shooter most maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip.“Without this ongoing manual input, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock will not fire multiple shots,” Thomas wrote.`Blood on our streets'Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, said there’s little doubt that when Congress banned machine guns, lawmakers would have seen little difference between a machine gun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock.But that’s not how the law was written, Alito said, so the “simple remedy” is for Congress to amend it.California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said Congress must act."This decision will put blood on our streets," Newsom posted on social media. "That blood will be on the hands of every Republican in Congress who has refused to enact common sense reforms."Ban challenged by gun shop ownerMichael Cargill, a gun shop owner and gun rights advocate from Austin, Texas, sued the government over the ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Cargill and the Biden administration appealed.In its decision, the appeals court said that the government was seeking to ban bump stocks "by administrative fiat," even though the ATF had previously permitted the devices.Congress banned automatic weapons for private use through a 1934 law, after machine guns became the weapon of choice for gangsters like Al Capone and John Dillinger.Unlike another case before the court this year – whether domestic abusers can own guns – this one didn’t rest on the 2nd Amendment.
But it was still of high concern to gun rights advocates who pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Americans own bump stocks, relying on the government’s pre-2018 determinations that they are allowed.Advocates also feared that if the ATF won the case, the agency would go after semi-automatic weapons.Gun control groups call bump stocks a “unique danger to society.”Likewise, the American Medical Association, whose members said they’ve seen first-hand the “enormous human carnage, destruction and chaos” caused by rapid-fire bullets, said firearms modified by bump stocks “have no place in a civilized society.”The case is Garland v. Cargill.
Biden is fucking seething about his bumpstock ban getting btfo'd
>>1304127forgot the link. here is the jew literally in tears because he can't pass unconstitutional laws by himself https://x.com/POTUS/status/1801647833549881802 remember, banning guns is the number 1 priority for dems
>>1304127>>1304128Why did Trump ban bump stocks?
>>1304128>remember I am an absolute delusional retard
>>1304131>>1304132He tried to post one of his textless threads blaming Biden for it but OP beat him to it.
>>1304131You know why
>>1304132>>1304134you seem like you are seething hard, fagboi>>1304131>>1304144why are only brandon and the dems seething about this scotus ruling?
>>1304154why can you never acknowledge the blunders your orange god made
>>1304162i just want to know why he always has such a hard time differentiating between posters
>>1304162Peak TDS. The best squatter in history living rent feee in your dimly lit head.Eat shit commie.
>>1304168Why do you keep bringing up The Daily Show?
>>1304162>>1304166Why isn't trump, or any republican, complaining about the ban being overturned? Why are biden and the rest of the dems fucking seething over this?
>>1304176why weren't you complaining when trump enacted it via executive order? because your fealty to trump usurps your own personal ideals
>>1304176I don't know why you think who is "complaining" about it matters?
>>1304178>>1304180Why isn't trump, or any republican, complaining about the ban being overturned? Why are biden and the rest of the dems fucking seething over this? if it was a trump EO shouldn't brandon be happy its gone instead of seething?
>>1304185>if it was a trump EO there's no if. it was a trump EO and you can't acknowledge that because you loyally guzzle trump cum every minute of every day
>>1304185https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-nra-counted-court-bump-stocks-legal-rcna157186>Trump was faced with an unpalatable choice: do nothing and alienate mainstream voters or push Congress to legislate a ban, which would infuriate some gun-rights voters in the GOP's base and highlight divisions within his own party.>Republican lawmakers said he would be able to muscle a law through Congress if he chose that route. "Nobody gives me more cover in my district than Donald Trump,” then-Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said at the time. "They believe in Donald Trump and they believe that if he thinks [bump stocks] should be illegal, they should be illegal.">Trump found a third option that lowered the temperature on the gun-control debate in the short term — robbing momentum from congressional efforts to ban bump stocks — and kicked the issue to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.>Taking a cue from the National Rifle Association, Trump used his executive authority to write a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regulation banning bump stocks.
>"I went with them," Trump said of the NRA in a 2023 interview on CNN.>Like him, the gun lobby's biggest player wanted to avoid both a new firearm-control law and the perception of inaction in the face of the Las Vegas massacre. It would be harder to repeal a law than roll back a regulation, and the legislative process is messy enough that a new law might have ended up including other restrictions on firearms.>Top executives at the NRA said the ATF should look at whether bump stocks conformed to federal law.>"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, then of the NRA, said in a statement at the time, stopping short of explicitly concluding that bump stocks in fact do just that.>It was exactly that language that Justice Clarence Thomas homed in on in writing Friday's majority opinion.>"This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a 'machine gun,'" Thomas wrote. "We hold that it does not.">Trump has shown no compunction about attacking courts and their officers when he believes he didn't get his way. He didn't do that at all on Friday. Rather than commenting directly when the opinion was made public, Trump let his campaign do the talking. A statement released by campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt preached deference to the justices.>"The court has spoken and their decision should be respected," she said, calling Trump a "fierce defender" of gun rights. And, she noted, he carries the endorsement of the NRA.>Trump followed the gun lobby's lead in relying on the court to ensure that shooters have access to bump stocks. It took seven years for that plan to come together. But it did.
>>1304186Why are you obsessed with guzzling cum?
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677788059/justice-department-bans-bump-stocks-devices-used-in-deadly-las-vegas-shootingIt was Trump. It was two years before the election. Biden wasn't even the Democratic nominee yet. He didn't even announce he was running yet.Why is gun schizo consistently the least intellectually honest, most bad faith anon on this shitty-ass board (or perhaps, on this entire godforsaken website)?
>>1304193He is one of the /k/ refugees who get banned there for posting news
lel. Fuck dRumpf! Bumpstocks for ALL!!!Chew on a chode, CHUDs.
>>1304267that'll show em
>>1304172 Jon Leibowitz is the antichrist
>>1304131>Why did Trump ban bump stocks?As far as I know, Trump has never been hunting or personally into guns and on this issue, he just went along with the generally pro-gun Rep party line but at the time due to the Las Vegas Shooting, it was felt that "something had to be done" and banning bump-stocks was an easy political move.
>>1304117Fact of the matter is no bump stocks have ever been used in a mass shooting.>but muh Vegas shootingThat was a CIA psyop, we still don’t have any evidence the guy they pinned it on did it. No hotel footage.
>>1304604Reverse Uno. Convincing right wing CHUDs that every mass shooting is a CIA psyop is the actual CIA psyop.
>>1304131Because Trump is at heart an old school new york democrat.
>>1304186you literally rim shit out of biden's asshole every day. why are only the dems bitching about this?>>1304190so why are only the dems upset?
>>1304193why are only brandon and the dems upset over the ruling?
>>1304743you still haven't stated why you think being upset over this is important
>>1304744Because you touch yourself at night
>>1304619the vegas shooting was done with a belt fed. the RoF was super consistent and the same pace as an M240 machine gun. the guy would have had to reload super fast and been able to keep a slower than normal bumpstock pace consistently the whole time
>>1304745because it shows its a deem position and that deems are btfo'd
