The ban was imposed by the Trump administration after the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas and is being defended by the Biden administration.

Some Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed reluctance to strike down a ban on “bump stocks,” a gun accessory that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly, although the final outcome remains unclear.

The prohibition was imposed by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017 in which Stephen Paddock used bump stock-equipped firearms to open fire on a country music festival, initially killing 58 people.

The Supreme Court in 2019 declined to block the regulation. The already conservative court has tilted further to the right since then, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020.

Conservatives now have a 6-3 majority that has backed gun rights in previous cases.

  • Fal@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    Terrible take. Could be used to justify banning literally all guns except flintlock pistols. You can accomplish the same thing as a bump stock with a piece of string. This is what leads to this nonsense

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It gets even dumber than that, as there are exceptions (and exceptions to the exception) for almost every pictured example. The top SBR Glock could be still a pistol if the rear protruding portion was just a tube to attach an approved brace design. The AOW Glock pictured below that could have a vertical attachment up front as long as that attachment held a spare magazine in it, because by definition and precedent, a spare mag holder cannot be a forward grip, even though it can serve the function of being gripped.

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t. Good thing rights aren’t based on a personal need

      • funkyfarmington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t need a bump stock, I need for federal agencies not to overstep Congress, which is what this is all about. Most folks don’t care about bump stocks, its just a gimmick.

        This suit is about MUCH more than bump stocks and has implications across the entire federal government.

        • 800XL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No one overstepped Congress. Congress banned machine guns, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, one of whose jobs includes regulating firearms, classified bump stocks as something that can turn a semi-auto weapon into an auto weapon and enforced the decision of Congress.

          If Congress wants you to have bump stocks then Congress can pass a law saying so and there will be no question.