The Supreme Court is currently in session, with arguments being presented regarding the legality of a federal regulation that prohibits the use of devices that enhance the firing speed of semiautomatic weapons. This case is under scrutiny, with the Second Amendment right to bear arms not being the central issue. The regulation in question, implemented in 2018 by President Trump, was a response to a tragic incident in Las Vegas where a gunman, utilizing modified semiautomatic weapons, caused extensive casualties within a short span of time. Marisa Marano, an eyewitness to the event, vividly recalls the terrifying sounds of rapid gunfire that night. Contrary to popular belief, the weapons used were not machine guns but rather semiautomatic firearms equipped with bump stocks to enable rapid firing. This led to the swift action by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to prohibit the sale and possession of such devices, effectively categorizing them as illegal.
The Supreme Court Challenge Regarding Bump Stocks
Machine guns were initially created in the late 1800s for military purposes. However, by the late 1920s and early 1930s, criminals, particularly gangsters, started utilizing them in their unlawful endeavors, causing fear among the public. In response, Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934, which prohibited the possession of machine guns.
Challenging the Supreme Court on Bump Stock Regulation
Those who are contesting the Trump administration’s rule regarding bump stocks highlight that the ATF has not consistently classified bump stocks as machine guns. They argue that the agency has incorrectly redefined the law prohibiting machine guns to include bump stocks, asserting that the agency lacks the legal authority to do so.
Central to the disagreement is a complex issue concerning the operational mechanics of bump stocks. The government, in its ATF brief, points out that the National Firearms Act banned machine guns because they eliminate the manual actions required for continuous firing. While a machine gun can discharge numerous rounds per minute with a single trigger pull, semiautomatic firearms cannot achieve this without alterations, such as the addition of a bump stock.
Mark Chenoweth, the president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative organization challenging the bump stock regulation, argues that bump stocks do not alter the fundamental nature of a firearm.
“Regardless of whether a semiautomatic weapon is equipped with a bump stock, the operation of the trigger remains unchanged,” he explains. “Each shot requires a separate trigger pull, with the trigger resetting between shots.”
Contrary to this viewpoint, the government asserts that a standard semiautomatic rifle fires a single shot per trigger pull, whereas a bump stock transforms the firearm into a device capable of firing up to 800 rounds per minute with a single trigger pull. The government claims that the bump stocks in question in this case enable continuous firing as long as the shooter maintains pressure on the trigger.
Both sides emphasize their respective positions. The government underscores the increased lethality of semiautomatic weapons when modified by bump stocks, highlighting that machine gun components are considered machine guns under the National Firearms Act amendments of 1968 and 1986.
On the other hand, the challengers draw attention to previous ATF regulations that did not prohibit bump stocks under the same law. They view the bump stock prohibition as another instance of an administrative agency creating a new regulation that criminalizes behavior without explicit congressional approval.
This argument aligns with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which has shown a growing tendency to limit agency authority. A ruling on this case is anticipated before summer.
For more information on the Supreme Court challenge and bump stock regulations, please visit our site 60time.com. Don’t forget to follow us on social media at Facebook.
