Supreme Court overturns Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle stocks | News, Sports, Jobs

FILE – A bump stock is on display in Harrisonburg, Virginia, March 15, 2019. The Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a firearm accessory that allows semi- automatics to fire quickly like machine guns. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, file)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on Bump Stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. United States, in a decision that put guns back in the country's political spotlight. .

The high court's conservative majority ruled that the Trump administration had overstepped by changing course from its predecessors and banning bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to that of machine guns. The decision came after a gunman attacked a country music festival in Las Vegas with semi-automatic rifles equipped with these accessories.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 shots into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands fleeing in terror, hundreds injured and dozens dead.

The decision put guns back at the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried a Republican administration's reversal of action and many Republicans supported the decision.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas held that the Justice Department was wrong to rule that bump rifles turned semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote , each pull of the trigger in rapid succession still only fires a single shot.

The ruling strengthened limits on executive power, and two justices — conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Sonia Sotomayor — separately highlighted how action in Congress could potentially provide more lasting policy, if there was political will to act in a bipartisan manner.

Originally imposing a ban through regulation rather than legislation during Donald Trump's presidency reduced pressure on Republicans to act after the massacre and another shooting mass at a high school in Parkland, Florida. The prospects for passing gun restrictions in the currently divided Congress are dim.

President Joe Biden, who supports gun restrictions, called on Congress to reinstate the ban imposed by his political foe. Trump's campaign team, for its part, expressed respect for the decision before quickly turning to its support by the National Rifle Association.

As Trump courts gun owners as he races to retake the presidency, he appears to downplay his own administration's actions on wholesale stocks, telling NRA members in February that “nothing happened” on guns during his presidency despite “strong pressure.” He told the group that if he were re-elected, “no one would lay a finger on your guns.”

The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who killed himself, leaving his exact motive a mystery. A total of 60 people were killed in the shooting, including Christiana Duarte, whose family called Friday's decision tragic.

“This decision is really just another way of inviting people to commit another mass shooting,” said Danette Meyers, a family friend and spokeswoman. “It’s a shame they have to go through this again.” They are really unhappy.

This opinion comes after the same conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court issued a historic decision expanding gun rights in 2022. The high court is also expected to rule on another gun case in the coming weeks , challenging a federal law intended to keep guns out of the hands of people under domestic violence restraining orders.

The arguments in the Bump Stock case, however, were less about Second Amendment rights than whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an agency of the Justice Department, had overstepped its authority .

Protective stocks are accessories that replace a rifle's stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. Invented in the 2000s, they harness the weapon's recoil energy so that the trigger strikes the shooter's stationary finger, allowing the weapon to fire at a speed similar to that of an automatic weapon.

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the 1934 law against machine guns defined them as weapons capable of automatically firing more than one shot by a single trigger function. Safety stocks do not fit this definition because “the trigger must always be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,” Thomas wrote. He also pointed to more than a decade of ATF findings that bump stocks were not automatic weapons.

The plaintiff, Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner and military veteran, applauded the ruling in a video posted online, predicting the case would have ripple effects in hindering other gun restrictions of the ATF. “I’m glad I got up and fought,” he said.

In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sotomayor said humpback stocks fall within the plain meaning of the law: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she wrote. The decision, she said, could cripple the ATF and have “deadly consequences.”

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach echoed that sentiment, saying bump stocks “present an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”

The High Court took up the case after a split between the lower courts. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF ruled that bump stocks did not turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. The agency reversed those decisions at Trump's request. This was after the Las Vegas massacre and the Parkland, Florida, shootings that left 17 people dead.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have their own bans on bump stocks that are not expected to be affected by the ruling, although four states' bans may no longer cover bump stocks, according to the gun control group at Everytown fire.

Cargill's lawyers acknowledged that bump stocks allow for rapid fire, but argued they are different because the shooter must exert more effort to keep the weapon firing.

The Biden administration had argued that the efforts were minimal and said the ATF had reached the correct conclusion about bump stocks after conducting a more in-depth review prompted by the Las Vegas shootings.

There were about 520,000 relief stocks in circulation when the ban took effect in 2019, forcing people to return or destroy them, for an estimated combined loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in filings. court documents.

Today's latest news and more in your inbox