Another win for the good guys over the Biden Admin and gun grabbers
On June 14, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling, determining that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had overreached its authority in interpreting a federal firearms law to ban bump stocks. In a 6–3 decision, the majority opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that a semiautomatic rifle fitted with a bump stock does not qualify as a ‘machinegun’ under the law because it does not discharge more than one round with a single trigger function.
🚨BREAKING SCOTUS lifted the Bump stock ban. Libs are losing it's SHALL NOT INFRINGE LFG!!!!! pic.twitter.com/j6IyH71Dxh
— MAGA Elvis 🇺🇸 (@BenStanton77) June 14, 2024
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting alongside the other liberal justices, argued that bump stocks transform semiautomatic firearms into the functional equivalent of machine guns, famously remarking that if something looks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it should be called a duck. She criticized the majority for adopting a restrictive interpretation that, in her view, undermines the government’s ability to regulate machine guns effectively, referencing the 2017 Las Vegas shooting where bump stocks were infamously used.
This ruling stemmed from a challenge by Michael Cargill, a radio host, against the ATF’s rule on bump stocks. The Fifth Circuit Court initially upheld the ATF’s interpretation, which was reversed during an en banc review, a decision now affirmed by the Supreme Court. Cargill celebrated the ruling on social media, suggesting it would protect Second Amendment rights and hinder ATF overreach.
Dear Clarence Thomas and far-right Supreme Court justices, Please tell the American people again how an AR-15 fitted with a bump stock is not a machine gun.
Fuck y'all. Sincerely, the overwhelming majority of American people.pic.twitter.com/T4G4oFpD1I
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) June 14, 2024
The court’s decision has ignited a flurry of reactions. President Joe Biden and various Democratic politicians expressed dismay, urging Congress to legislate against bump stocks and other firearm regulations. In contrast, Republican figures and gun rights advocates praised the decision for respecting constitutional boundaries between Congress and the executive.
As promised in my video on bump stocks – here's the video from The Gun Collective channel showing, in glorious slow motion, how a single function of the trigger results in one round being fired. Therefor – a bump stock can not be a "machine gun" under federal law.#Bumpstock pic.twitter.com/G7jrRpJptu
— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) June 14, 2024
Justice Samuel Alito, in his concurrence, emphasized that legislative changes needed to address issues highlighted by tragic events like the Las Vegas shooting are the purview of Congress, not the result of administrative interpretation shifts. Meanwhile, gun rights organizations heralded the ruling as a victory for the principle that laws should be enforced, not created, by executive agencies.
Major Points
- The Supreme Court ruled that the ATF overstepped its authority by interpreting a federal law to ban bump stocks, with a 6-3 decision stating bump stocks do not make a rifle a machine gun.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that bump stocks effectively convert semiautomatic weapons into machine guns, referencing their use in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
- The decision upheld a reversal by the Fifth Circuit Court, favoring Michael Cargill, who challenged the ATF’s rule on bump stocks.
- The ruling drew strong reactions, with President Biden and Democratic lawmakers calling for legislative action on gun control, while gun rights advocates celebrated the decision as a victory for constitutional principles.
- The case emphasizes the role of Congress in defining firearm regulations, suggesting that changes to laws concerning devices like bump stocks should be made legislatively, not administratively.
Charles William III – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News
