Supreme Court Refuses to Block Ban on Bump Stocks

Lots of talk about the “new” supreme court seems to be premature…

It’s a useless ban that will provide no appreciable results in saving lives. But, considering there is a strong argument that these devices do effectively modify semi auto weapons into fully auto weapons, I don’t see a good legal case against the ban…atleast, not as our laws now stand. On the bright side, perhaps this ban will serve to placate some of the irrational fears of the perpetually insecure anti-gun mob, lord knows they need that.

The problem I see with the ban is that there was no buy back. I look for there to be law suits about the government banning a product that people already own and not compensating them for the cost.
As for the ban don’t see where it is going to effect most gun owners.
I’m also not as optimistic about this soothing to fears of the anti gun crowd. I’m afraid this is just going to embolden the anti gun crowd. I think they will take this as a win and push for more. Hope I’m wrong and your right.

Honestly, I didn’t even think of the lack of the financial compesation component. That does seem troubling.

But as to the placating of fears…that comment was in jest, those folks will never be satisfied.

Yep. A clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Was it challenged on that basis and denied?

One of them was based on an objection that Trump exceeded his authority. Ahh here is the one Roberts denied.


The regulation has been challenged in other courts, too, but so far none of them have ruled for the plaintiffs. After a federal trial judge in Washington refused to enter a preliminary injunction, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did issue a temporary stay of the regulation, but it applied only to the plaintiffs in the case before it.

The challengers in that case, Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 18A964, asked the Supreme Court to intervene. “Hundreds of thousands of citizens,” they wrote, “will be required to surrender or destroy their property or face felony charges for possession of devices that were unquestionably legal under A.T.F.’s construction of the statute for the past 85 years and A.T.F.’s prior written rulings stating as much.”

“No person,” their brief said, “should have to face the threat of felony prosecution and deprivation of their property due to the rushed and arbitrary time frame A.T.F. placed on these proceedings.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., noting that the appeals court had already imposed a partial stay, denied the application on Tuesday.

Note his reason for denial. I don’t see how at least the part about those who own them have to turn them in or destroy them without compensation can stand.

Huh, and I thought “shall not infringe” was the law of the land. I guess we actually can have restrictions. It’s a shame this is a feckless one though.

A bump stock is not an “arm”. It is an attachment to an arm.

Doesn’t matter to the gun crowd. Never did. I remember the whining.

Whining about what?

Slippery slopes and dems comin to git your guns.

If they had won, they’d be even more emboldened. Hopefully they’ll understand that what needs to be dealt with, are the policies that were promoted by libs, to radically alter our culture, distance ourselves from God, remove the mother from the home, deny the sanctity of marriage and the result is a mass murderer with no heart for life itself…whether it’s others or their own.

The only slippery slope here involves violating the takings clause.

You prove my point. Thanks.

I don’t think it’s only gun owners who support the taking clause. Or are you all good with the government seizing your property without compensation?

You missed the point entirely. Many gun advocates thought banning bump stocks was a slippery slope to other restrictions, like banning what they called assault weapons again.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not arguing the taking of property - real estate or otherwise.

Well it’s definitely a slippery slope in allowing the government to take them without compensation if they do ban them.

Yes, it is. Thanks again for agreeing.

So restricting magazines to 5 rounds would be okay?