[ad_1]
The Supreme Court weighed in Wednesday over whether the Trump administration acted legally in enacting a ban on bump stocks in the wake of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
Justices have divided largely along ideological lines over the ban, which bans the sale and possession of bump stocks, attachments that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds comparable to machine guns. It seems so. Some expressed concern about the broader implications of the reversal.
This lawsuit does not validate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Rather, it is one of many challenges aimed at curtailing the power of executive branch agencies, in this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. A decision is expected to be made by late June.
Bump stock bans gained political attention after a gunman opened fire on the 32nd floor of a hotel suite at a country music festival in Las Vegas in 2017, making it one of the few gun regulations to spark significant debate. It is one of the laws. Justice Department officials initially said the executive branch could not ban accessories without Congressional action. However, it eventually changed its mind and enacted its own ban.
The question is whether bump stocks fall under the legal definition of a machine gun. If a court decides that a bump stock can be used to make a gun a “machine gun,” it could be banned as part of a highly regulated category by the ATF.
During less than two hours of arguments, the justices appeared to have a hard time understanding how gun triggers work and the ban’s value to gun owners and the general public.
“Instinctively, I am completely sympathetic to your argument,” Judge Amy Coney Barrett told Brian H. Fletcher, an attorney representing the government. “So this thing seems to work just like a machine gun.”
But she also wondered aloud why Congress hadn’t enacted a law more specifically targeting such devices.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, one of the court’s most conservative members, appears to agree. He said that while he “certainly understands why these items should be illegal,” he didn’t understand why the executive branch rather than Congress should act.
The remaining conservatives on the court appeared divided. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is often near the center of the court and could cast key votes in the case, but he asked few questions and provided little insight into his position. Ta.
The three liberal justices appeared to be unanimous in upholding the government’s decision to ban the device, citing bump stocks and how they allow semi-automatic guns to fire a “torrent of bullets.” I have repeatedly proposed hypotheses as to what will happen.
The Justice Department’s sudden change in policy appears to have bothered Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
If this device is “obviously new and covered by this old legal text, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and Sen. Feinstein would say of course it is covered, but they are not covered. There was no such thing,” Judge Kavanaugh said. , named Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who died in September and was one of the most prominent critics of bump stocks. “That’s the reason for the pause.”
The challenge was raised by Michael Cargill, the owner of a gun store in Texas that sold bump stocks. He heads the New Liberal Civil Rights Alliance, a legal advocacy group with financial ties to billionaire Charles Koch, a longtime supporter of conservative and liberal causes. This group primarily targets what it considers to be illegal uses of executive power.
Jonathan F. Mitchell, an attorney who is arguing on Cargill’s behalf to overturn the ban on bump stocks, said there is a “good reason” to allow bump stocks because they help photograph people with disabilities and arthritis. He argued that there may be.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor immediately asked, “Why would Congress think that someone, even a person with arthritis, would need to shoot 400 to seven or even 800 rounds under any circumstances?” he argued.
Some conservative justices, particularly Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, expressed concern about the ban’s impact on people who had purchased bump stocks before the accessory was banned.
Under the federal ban, possessing or selling bump stocks could be punishable by prison time. Anyone who sold or owned bump stocks at the time of Prohibition was asked to turn them in or destroy them.
Justice Alito asked Fletcher what would happen to people who owned bump stocks in the years since the ban, including those who live in areas where federal appeals courts have overturned the ban.
“Can they be prosecuted?” Justice Alito asked.
When Mr. Fletcher answered, “Probably so,” Justice Alito immediately responded, “Isn’t that disturbing?”
“This will ensnare many people who are unaware of the legal prohibition,” Judge Kavanaugh said.
Mr. Fletcher’s response that the agency had completed the necessary steps to notify the public about the ban prompted a sarcastic reaction from Judge Gorsuch.
Most Americans did indeed spend their leisure time perusing the Federal Register, the publication in which the government records proposed rules, the judge said. He added derisively that “gun owners all over the country always pry their guns open next to fire and dogs.”
Fletcher said with a wry smile that the ban “didn’t go unnoticed” by gun enthusiasts, citing the many legal challenges that followed.
Machine guns were banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The law defines a firearm as “any weapon capable of firing multiple shots automatically without manual reloading by a single function, designed to fire, or capable of being readily restored to fire.” It has been. Trigger’s. ” This definition was expanded by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that could be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun.
But until the Trump administration banned bump stocks, they were an exception, not because of a “single function of the trigger,” but because they increase the gun’s velocity by sliding the stock back and forth for a quick trigger pull. It was considered legal. Required for machine guns.
The judges do not seem to share a common understanding of bump stocks and how they work. Some people seemed confused by the mechanics. Judge Kagan moved his arms and hands to try to demonstrate his understanding of how the device could be transformed into a weapon.
There was also no consensus on whether bump stocks change the function of a semi-automatic rifle’s trigger, which is designed to fire a round with each pull of the trigger.
The technical part of the discussion focused on the language of the law, particularly key terms such as “automatically” and “single function of trigger.”
Mitchell argued that the judge should interpret the law narrowly, meaning it doesn’t apply to bump stocks.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Alito both had lengthy exchanges with lawyers, pressing them on how to interpret the law.
Justice Alito appeared to support Mitchell’s argument that the ban goes too far because the device itself does not physically touch or move the rifle’s trigger mechanism.
Judge Jackson seemed skeptical of that argument. She seemed more supportive of the government’s argument that the device could be banned because it has a practical effect on guns, significantly increasing the velocity and number of bullets it can fire. .
Justice Kagan seemed to agree.
“So, there may be other ways to use this device, but the gist of this device is that when you apply forward pressure and put your finger on the trigger, it fires a torrent of bullets,” she said. Told.
[ad_2]
Source link
