SCOTUS refuses bump stock case

[ladder13]

SCOTUS denied review of Guedes vs BATFE. The case was about whether BATFE had the authority to ban bump stocks.


Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge To Bump Stock Ban

 

[GaryS]

This case is dead, but there are other bump stock challenges making their way through the federal court system, so the issue may not be.

 

[rednichols]

The ban stands: good decision. Bump stocks: bad decision (Las Vegas is on the line). What's wrong? The bump stocks should not have been approved in the first place, nor invented and sold in the first place. "Sometimes illegal, always wrong" comes to mind. This has been my position since I first discovered they existed from news of the LV massacre.

 

[Watchdog]

The president, not the BATFE, made the decision to ban bump stocks in December of 2018. The BATFE didn't just pull the ban out of their hat.

The BATFE is part of the Justice Department. At the express direction of the president, the Justice Department created a new regulation which changed the BATFE'S designation of bump stocks.

Quoting from that new regulation (bold print is mine):

"The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning "bump fire" stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are 'machine guns' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger."

Don't take my word for it, though. Read the regulation by clicking here.

Although Justice Neil Gorsuch sort of wondered why lower courts went along with the reasoning behind the ban, he still agreed with the other Justices that the case didn't merit hearing at the Supreme Court level. He did not advocate the Court hearing the case. I don't believe Gorsuch has turned out to be quite the Second Amendment hero some people thought he would be. Or maybe the right case just hasn't come before the Court yet, who knows?

I wonder why this is a Second Amendment topic, anyway. No one is saying you can't have an AR or an AK or whatever semi-auto AR-style rifle you want. Buy as many of the things you want. The law is just saying gun owners can't modify that rifle and turn it into a machine gun. Want a machine gun? Do the paperwork, pay the fees/taxes and buy one. Or buy a bunch of rubber bands and "modify" the AR that way, whichever you prefer.

The whole bump stock thing has been beaten to death on every gun forum on the Internet and by every gun rights organization on the planet. It's a dead issue far as I'm concerned.

 

[stansdds]

Well said, Watchdog, well said.

 

[Recusant]

Braces will be next.

 

[Echo40]

Braces will be next.

It's a slippery slope.

That's what folks who support the Bump Stock Ban need to understand.

First they ban firearms peripherals, then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

 

[GaryS]

While I never had any interest in a bump stock, the way the ban was enacted sets a bad precedent.

It's a slippery slope.

That's what folks who support the Bump Stock Ban need to understand.

First they ban firearms peripherals, then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

 

[Watchdog]

While I never had any interest in a bump stock, the way the ban was enacted sets a bad precedent.

The President of the United States...who millions of gun owners, sportsmen, and NRA members profess to love, respect, and admire...exercised his Constitutional authority by directing the Justice Department to create a new regulation that would ban bump stocks nationwide. "Bad precedent" or not (and that's open to interpretation), he did nothing illegal and was within his rights to do so.

Now that's a fact, and there's no two ways about it. It was national (maybe even international) news when he did it in December of 2018.

Lots of presidents have done things the people didn't like. So c'mon...what are gun owners gonna do? He's the president. Like it or not, he's the Boss, and the bump stock ban still stands.

More of these little lawsuits will probably continue to wend their way through the court system and will probably meet the same fate as this most recent one, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[ladder13]

The ban stands: good decision. Bump stocks: bad decision (Las Vegas is on the line). What's wrong? The bump stocks should not have been approved in the first place, nor invented and sold in the first place. "Sometimes illegal, always wrong" comes to mind. This has been my position since I first discovered they existed from news of the LV massacre.

You’re entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion.

 

[GaryS]

It stands... for now. Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined. There are, as noted, other challenges making their way through the courts.

SCOTUS will often decline to hear cases or even reject a challenge because of "standing" or because the case is not "ripe" for a decision.

They like clean cases that for which a decision will not cause more problems than it solves.

As an example only, the current abortion case may turn on a question of standing, as opposed to the merits of the case. The parties suing to overturn that law may not have standing to sue.

The workings of the Supreme Court are very complex. I don't have more than a surface understanding of how they arrive at decisions, but do know that sometimes it's more (or less) than the merits of the case.

The President of the United States...who millions of gun owners, sportsmen, and NRA members profess to love, respect, and admire...exercised his Constitutional authority by directing the Justice Department to create a new regulation that would ban bump stocks nationwide. "Bad precedent" or not (and that's open to interpretation), he did nothing illegal and was within his rights to do so.

Now that's a fact, and there's no two ways about it. It was national (maybe even international) news when he did it in December of 2018.

Lots of presidents have done things the people didn't like. So c'mon...what are gun owners gonna do? He's the president. Like it or not, he's the Boss, and the bump stock ban still stands.

More of these little lawsuits will probably continue to wend their way through the court system and will probably meet the same fate as this most recent one, which really shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[Watchdog]

...then the next thing you know you're no longer allowed to have your teeth straightened.

The government better be careful. The Orthodontist Lobby has deep pockets and is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[rednichols]

You’re entitled to your opinion, it’s your opinion.

Yes it is . Anyone who thought a bump stock was a good idea because it 'cleverly' got around a legitimate law that regulated automatic firing (and equally 'cleverly' ignored the physics that need an open bolt to cool the barrel -- which is why the Vegas shooter had so many jammed rifles at the scene) instead had a bad idea. Bad bad bad bad and hundreds of the dead and the wounded to prove it. Three cheers for the President and for the Supreme Court.

 

[stansdds]

My issue with this ban and the SOCTUS's refusal to hear the case is that it may be setting the precedent for this or another President to enact law without congressional approval. This circumvents the checks and balances that were built into our form of government as set forth in the constitution. Sadly, congress delegated its authority to create law to unelected bureaus and, if the President can create law by directing a bureau to do something, then there is far less of a check on Presidential power.

 

[Watchdog]

My issue with this ban and the SCOTUS's refusal to hear the case is that it may be setting the precedent for this or another President to enact law without congressional approval.

The bump stock ban is not a federal law. It's a revised rule or regulation in a federal agency. Federal agencies do it all the time, with or without a president's urging. It's like the fine print in stuff you buy...like, "Product specifications and warranty conditions may change without notice."

If Congress (especially the present Congress) thought their legislative powers were being usurped by the president, don't you think there would have been howls of anger coming from the House over this? Remember, this was put into effect in December of 2018...well over a year ago. Congress has had plenty of time to protest how this was done or even introduce legislation to nullify the new regulation. It shouldn't be hard to guess why they didn't.

It stands...for now. Whether or not it is legal has yet to be determined. There are, as noted, other challenges making their way through the courts.

Yes, it stands for now. And that's the bottom line far as I'm concerned. Now. Speculation about whether it's legal or not, or hinting about other cases which may or may not come before the Supreme Court x-number of years from now is just that...speculation.

Speculation is nice. It's one of the things that sets us apart from other species. It's part of being able to imagine things. But speculation about this has absolutely no effect on the present. Zero.

 

[rwsmith]

Yes. Though I could care less about bump stocks.....

... and even agree with the reasoning. What's next on the list? I don't understand why my SKS is part of the 'Assault Weapons Ban'. A semi auto with a 10 round internal magazine.

 

[stansdds]

If Congress (especially the present Congress) thought their legislative powers were being usurped by the president, don't you think there would have been howls of anger coming from the House over this? Remember, this was put into effect in December of 2018...well over a year ago. Congress has had plenty of time to protest how this was done or even introduce legislation to nullify the new regulation. It shouldn't be hard to guess why they didn't.

Honestly, I doubt that a great number of those who have been elected to the current House of Representatives has ever read the constitution from beginning to end, so I doubt they understand their powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the limits and checks thereon.

 

[Watchdog]

Honestly, I doubt that a great number of those who have been elected to the current House of Representatives has ever read the constitution from beginning to end, so I doubt they understand their powers, the executive powers, the legislative powers, and the limits and checks thereon.

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

 

[rednichols]

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

I think your missives are always well thought-out and expressed equally well. In this case I'll say that its unlikely that anyone on this forum voted for a certain, high profile member of the House from New York state and such members quite literally make the laws. Certainly not I; I vote in CA. Yup plenty of no-hopers in my home state but I didn't vote for 'em .

 

[stansdds]

Well, that's your opinion, and it may or may not be true. Not for me to say.

Insult their intelligence all you wish, but they're still the ones sitting in the halls of Congress making laws. And just how did they get there? They're there because voters just like you put them there. Ditto for those sitting in the Virginia legislature. That's a fact, not an opinion. They didn't just materialize out of thin air, a bunch of people elected them.

For better or worse, voters nationwide have reaped what they sowed.

Voters like me did not vote for these people. Voters who moved here from northeast states (and I know a number of them, so I know that many have moved here either for job or to retire to a lower cost of living) and voters who are the "never Trump" crowd surely voted for this mess. Sadly, too many Republicans stayed away from the polls, either out of apathy, or because the Virginia GOP did not bother to contest races (a huge problem in Virginia), or perhaps they did not care for Trump. But is was not voters just like me.