We won’t go through all the nuts and bolts of this decision, but the short version is this. The ATF attempted to ban bump stocks by reinterpreting already existing law so that guns equipped with them would be considered illegal machine guns. That is, they effectively tried to change the law, by changing their interpretation of the relevant statutes and this interpretation would effectively make it criminal to own such a device. Apparently the plaintiff in this case had turned in his bump stock voluntarily (under protest) and then sued.
Today the Supreme Court said that this action by the ATF was illegal. The ATF can’t interpret a the relevant statutes so that a bump stock converts a regular gun into a machine gun.
...The court rules that a bump stock does convert the rifle into a machinegun.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 14, 2024
This is from a thread Prof. Turley posted discussing new Supreme Court opinions today. This was easily the most newsworthy opinion of the day.
We will also remind you that this is the same case where Justice Jackson famously said in oral argument that bump stocks would allow a person to fire 800 rounds a second.
...Thomas hits the dissent by Sotomayor in a footnote: The dissent says that we “resis[t]” the “ordinary understanding of the term ‘function of the trigger’ with two technical arguments.” Post, at 10. But, the arguments it refers to explain why, even assuming a semiautomatic…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 14, 2024
The cut off text reads:
But, the arguments it refers to explain why, even assuming a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock could fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, it could not do so ‘automatically.’ See infra, at 14–17. Those arguments have nothing to do with our explanation of what a ‘single function of the trigger’ means.
We will say that while this author likes and supports the Second Amendment, and does practice his rights under it, he doesn’t understand the mechanics of how a bump stock works well enough to understand this argument. We are good on the law, not so good on technical knowhow, when it comes to guns.
Of course, the other problem is that this author fundamentally doesn’t care because he thinks that we have a fundamental right to bear machine guns, anyway, so the exact mechanics don’t matter very much. We often hear people on the left claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t extend to weapons of war, but the text of the amendment contemplates ordinary people waging war.
...In his concurrence. Justice Alito basically says that this is not a matter for the courts as opposed to Congress: "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 14, 2024
The cut off text reads (continuing a quote of Alito):
Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.’
Which only makes it clear what should be obvious in context. Nothing the Supreme Court said in this decision means that Congress can’t ban bump stocks, if they want to do so. And we will note that while this author thinks we have a right to bear machine guns, the Supreme Court is unlikely to take such a radical position. This is the Supreme Court basically saying you can’t stretch a statute to ban bump stocks, but Congress can probably pass such a statute if it wants.
Given that this is an election year, we can predict that Democrats will try to pass something, and make political hay of the issue—especially if somehow the bill doesn’t pass.
More from Turley:
...Justice Sotomayor: "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. " The majority is saying that it does not fire or work as a machine gun. It is not a machine gun and Alito adds that we are not Congress. The…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 14, 2024
The cut off text reads:
The justices are not supporting the use of bump stocks or denying that they can be banned. They are just saying that it is not the role of the agency or now the court to do what was not done in Congress.
We will also predict that since Justice Alito’s wife was flying a revolutionary war era flag, that has been falsely claimed as the sole property of the January 6 rioters, that the left will complain that this is more evidence that Alito supports insurrection, or something.
We’re not saying it is fair or accurate to say this. We are only saying that it will be said.
We also predict a lot of ‘Rheeeeeee!’
We also predict that the people complaining the loudest are likely to be the most likely to call themselves the 'resistance' or to put #resist in their profile, and are the least likely to recognize the irony of that. The Second Amendment is all about the ability of people to resist.
In any case, this is a breaking news story. We wouldn’t be surprised if subsequent stories written at Twitchy focus on a deeper analysis of the law and even possibly the mechanics of the gun, or coverage of the conservative cheering and leftists rheee-ing. So, stay tuned and consider signing up to for VIP membership so you can join our conversation about today's decision.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member