[ad_1]
The Supreme Court appeared willing Wednesday to uphold a Trump-era ban on bump stocks as a device that turns weapons into illegal rapid-fire “machine guns,” but a majority of the justices ultimately It was not clear whether he would support or agree with such a ruling. About the basis.
During oral arguments in Garland v. Cargill, both liberal and conservative justices argued that the device, which allows shooters to fire semi-automatic rifles more quickly and accurately, poses a grave danger and that Congress has ruled that it can be classified as a type of weapon. He suggested that it would be reasonable to assume that The National Firearms Act of 1934 aimed to outlaw it.
Investigators say some of these devices were used in the United States’ deadliest mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, when a gunman killed 60 people and injured more than 500. It is said that
“Can you imagine a member of Congress who thinks machine guns should be banned but bump stocks shouldn’t be banned?” Justice Samuel Alito asked.
Justice Clarence Thomas said: “There was significant damage caused by machine guns, carnage, deaths, etc. And behind that is the idea that bump stocks do exactly the same thing.” “Then, given that background, shouldn’t we consider a broader definition?”
At the same time, courts were divided and sometimes confused over the technical specifications of fully automatic “machine guns,” whether they could be duplicated by adding a non-mechanical bump stock, and what the criminal liability would be for hundreds of thousands of people. It looked like there was. Number of Americans who legally purchased accessories from store shelves.
For eight years starting in 2009, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms classified bump stocks as recreational firearm accessories and legally approved their sale. It is said that over 700,000 units were sold. But after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, authorities reversed course, reinterpreting the 1934 law and ordering the devices to be surrendered or destroyed.
“Instinctively, I am completely sympathetic to your argument,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett told Deputy Attorney General Brian Fletcher, the administration’s lawyer defending the ban. “Yes, it seems to me that this is working like a machine gun. But, you know, when you look at that definition, the question is, why didn’t Congress pass a bill that covered it more clearly? I think it means.”
Fletcher said in his opening statement that “these weapons serve the exact same purpose that Congress sought to prohibit when it enacted the machine gun ban, and these weapons fall within the arguable statutory definition.” Since it satisfies both conditions, it is a machine gun.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “the reason for the pause” is the fact that administrations of both parties have repeatedly said the federal machine gun ban does not apply to bump stocks.
“It’s not a positive thing, but it’s grounds for a pause,” Kavanaugh said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said he “certainly understands why these things have to be banned,” but said the ATF rule change would affect hundreds of thousands of Americans who thought they were making legal purchases. He said he was also working on the impact on the government.
“It’s going to trap a lot of people who don’t know the legal prohibition,” Justice Kavanaugh said, echoing Gorsuch’s opinion. Justice Alito also called the possibility of prosecution for people who legally purchased bump stocks “alarming.”
The court’s three liberal justices tried to end debate by focusing their questions on Congress’ original intent.
“Why do these different operational distinctions matter?” asked Justice Elena Kagan. “I read that this law is a secret law where Congress is directing everyone or us to identify certain types of weapons, and those certain types of weapons must be identified in a special way. treated and prohibited.”
“I consider myself a great textualist,” Kagan later added, “but textualism is not inconsistent with common sense.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “Weapons with bump stocks have triggers that function like automatic rifles,” adding, “A single pull to the right or a touch of the trigger triggers the automatic weapon.” “You get the same result as shooting.”
“No,” said Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney representing Texas gun store owner Michael Cargill, who is challenging the ban. “The premise of your question is not true. He pulls the trigger once and he only fires one shot.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned why bump stocks were needed, unless they were to recreate the kind of machine gun fire the government had sought to suppress in the past.
“Bump stocks can help people with disabilities, people with finger dexterity issues, and people with arthritis in their fingers,” Mitchell replied.
“Why does Congress think it’s necessary to shoot 400 to 800 rounds of ammunition to someone who has arthritis?” Sotomayor countered. [per minute] Under no circumstances? If you wouldn’t let someone without arthritis do it, why would you allow someone with arthritis to do it? ”
“Well, the magazine only holds 50 rounds, so it won’t fire 400 to 700 rounds,” Mitchell replied.
Government experts say semi-automatic rifles can theoretically fire up to 180 rounds per minute when operated by an experienced shooter. In contrast, a conventional fully automatic M-16 machine gun can fire between 700 and 950 rounds per minute. Semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks are estimated to be capable of firing 400 to 800 rounds per minute.
“The legal definition of a machine gun applies only to weapons that fire multiple shots automatically by a single function of the trigger,” Mitchell said. “Non-mechanical bump stocks fall outside the statutory definition.”
The judge is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
[ad_2]
Source link
