In a blow for the Biden regime and a huge victory for Second Amendment advocates, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks.
🚨🇺🇸BREAKING: SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL GUN BUMP STOCK BAN
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 14, 2024
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has declared the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that increase the firing rate of semi-automatic rifles, unlawful.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, stating… pic.twitter.com/P9wEpZteUP
In the case of Garland vs. Cargill, the Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had exceeded its constitutional authority in creating the regulation. The decision was 6-3, with all six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberal justices dissenting.
The opinion was written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who clarified that an accessory does not mean that a firearm equipped with it meets the “machine gun” definition under federal law.
“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.’ We hold that it does not,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
Here’s the full opinion:
LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has struck down former President Trump's bump stock ban, ruling 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its authority when it issued the rule. The opinion was written by Justice Thomas: https://t.co/canMOuyFLv pic.twitter.com/C8SgYkESXW
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 14, 2024
The ban was initially imposed in 2017 following the Las Vegas mass shooting.
Texas gun store owner Michael Cargill challenged the ban in a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court, resulting in a victory for Cargill.
I WON 6-3 Garland vs Cargill@centexguns @ComeAndTalkIt @NCLAlegal #bumpstock #CargillVGarland pic.twitter.com/g3K7FcGU6g
— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) June 14, 2024
According to the NFA definition, a “machine gun” must fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. That is not how a bump stock operates. Instead, it utilizes the firearm’s recoil to bump the stock against the shooter’s arm, causing the trigger to be pulled for each round fired. This mechanism does not qualify it as a “machine gun,” much like how a skilled shooter using a semi-automatic firearm exceptionally fast does not alter its classification.
This decision holds significance because it establishes a precedent for interpreting the NFA strictly based on its explicit language, rather than broad executive actions. It is likely that other presidential oversteps will face similar challenges in the future. This ruling marks a significant victory for the Second Amendment moving forward.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that a president and the ATF cannot arbitrarily ban items not specifically outlined in the NFA.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled the ATF’s ban on bump stocks is unconstitutional, it’s probably a good time to remind people that the Las Vegas shooting was at least partially committed with belt fed machine guns
— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) June 14, 2024
Listen for yourself pic.twitter.com/9aecCBDeV9
As expected, the Supreme Court’s decision has sparked intense emotions among Democrats and they are in an uproar.
AP News reported:
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in a ruling that threw firearms back into the nation’s political spotlight.
The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault rifles equipped with the accessories.
The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens were killed in 2017.
The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he said, they don’t “alter the basic mechanics of firing.”
Justice Samuel Alito agreed but wrote a short separate opinion to stress that Congress can change the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a dissent joined by the court’s liberals and read out loud in the courtroom that she hoped Congress would act.
More reactions from leftists:
I wonder how much Clarence Thomas was compensated on the side for the bump stock decision….or was that just a bonus for the right wingers?
— All Out Of Bubblegum (@BubblegumOut) June 14, 2024
Make no mistake, lovelies, SCOTUS ( Thomas wrote it) legalizing bump stocks again is no coincidence.
— lee sellars (@sellars333) June 14, 2024
They want the violence.#VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy
What a fuc#n dumb ass Judge. Machine guns have triggers. Clarence Thomas writes Supreme Court law overturning Trump's bump stock ban – Raw Story
— Carlito (@CarlitoCutesail) June 14, 2024
Extreme court overturn bump stock fans. Thomas wrote the 6-3 decision. I have a suggestion about what to do with those bump stocks but will keep it to myself as I don't want a visit from the FBI. But Jesus Fucking Christ.
— Nicole Sandler (@nicolesandler) June 14, 2024
WTF? I smell the NRA! Thomas and his pathetic statement is troubling! It is my understanding bump stocks turn a gun into a machine gun. Sotomayer said, “bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires automatically more than one shot;” that sounds much like a machine gun to me too
— Monica—TimeToVoteBlue! (@Monica80213924) June 14, 2024
