U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Bump Stock Ban

The bump stock ban was always premised on the concept that the items converted a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. Opponents to the ban pointed out that semi-automatic is defined as requiring a single action of the trigger for each shot; and that, even with a bump-stock attached, the weapon only fired on a single action of the trigger. 

     The United States Supreme Court has agreed in a 6-3 ruling. In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that a "semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.'" And, "[e]ven if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,' it would not do so ‘automatically.'" Thus, the court concluded that the BATF had unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in implementing the ban.

    I will note that this decision does not appear to rest on an interpretation of the Second Amendment, but rather on the interpretation and application of the language used in federal firearms laws. If that is correct, then the Supreme Court's decision may not have any impact on bans under state law (NBC News notes that 18 states have banned the accessory), nor would it prevent Congress from acting to ban bump stocks. On the other hand, one of the reasons that Trump resorted to a rule-making process to ban the accessory is because there was insufficient support in Congress to pass a new law, but Trump felt that he had to do something anyway (not that it helped him in the end).

    On a side note, Justice Sonia Sotomayor once again proved that she was a diversity hire who finds logic and reasoning to be too hard. Sotomayor rejected any reasoning based on the actual words of the relevant statutes, instead explaining: "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." That saying is short hand for the logic that if A shares all the same characteristics as X, then it A = X. It is because bump-stocks do not have certain of the key, defining characteristics of an automatic weapon that the majority found the ban unlawful. 

    Sotomayor instead is focused on appearances. Her reasoning is because it helps shoot a weapon faster, a weapon with a bumpstock must be an automatic weapon, and the actual wording of the law is superfluous. It is legal reasoning focused on getting to a particular end without concern for the necessary predicates. Thus, Sotomayor "derid[ed] the majority’s interpretation for ignoring common sense and instead relying on obscure technical arguments" that were apparently too difficult for her to comprehend. Sotomayor exhibits the same "logic" as deciding a person is a murderer because the person "looks like a murderer" and the technical explanations of physical evidence showing his innocence--such as finger prints, DNA, hair samples, etc.--are too difficult to understand and "ignore common sense". That is the reasoning of a child, mentally handicapped adult, or someone completely lacking any intellectual honesty. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is Sotomayor.

Stories:

• "Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Bump Stock Ban"--The Truth About Guns.
• "Supreme Court overturns Trump-era ban on bump stocks"--New York Post.
• "Supreme Court rules ban on gun bump stocks is unlawful"--NBC News.
• "Sotomayor rips Thomas’s bump stocks ruling in scathing dissent read from bench"--The Hill.