BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Guedes Bump Stock Ban Appeal

Bump Stock Ban

(AP Photo/Steve Helber)

By Mark Sherman, AP

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal of the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic firearms to fire rapidly like machine guns.

The justices did not comment in declining to review a lower court-ruling that upheld the ban, which took effect nearly a year ago.

President Donald Trump said that the government would move to ban bump stocks, following a 2017 shooting in Las Vegas in which a gunman attached bump stocks to assault-style rifles he used to shoot concertgoers from his hotel room. By using the devices, which allow shots to be fired more rapidly, the gunman was able to fire more than 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes. Fifty-eight people were killed, and hundreds were injured.

The Trump administration’s move was an about-face for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In 2010, under the Obama administration, the ATF found that the devices were legal. But under the Trump administration, officials revisited that determination and found it incorrect. The revised regulation requires owners either to destroy their bump stocks or surrender them. The government estimates hundreds of thousands of the devices have been sold.

The revised regulation was met with resistance from gun rights advocates, including the groups and gun owners who filed suit in Washington, D.C., and whose appeal the court turned away Monday. The administration, which typically supports gun rights, argued the court should not take up the case.

comments

  1. avatar dumpsterBUMPSTER says:

    fuck DUmpster and his unjust laws

    1. avatar Joe says:

      You think Trump is bad?? Get in ANY of those lousy DEMOCRAPPER in!! They ALL, including Doucheberg, are drooling to take your gun rights AND any others they believe work against them!!!!

  2. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

    Kiss the 2nd goodbye.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Umm that was long ago, when the first cowtown sheriff decided you cant carry a gun in my town. Since that time over 26,000 laws have been chipping away at the 2nd. Soon it will break and it will be a real mess.

    2. avatar Ed D. says:

      I am a 2nd Amendment advocate. But I see absolutely no reason for having a device that allows a semi-automatic weapon, to basically become an automatic weapon. As long as the courts, or the States do not attempt to outlaw AR-15’s and guns with higher capacity Magazines. That is the real threat to the 2nd Amendment.

      1. avatar M1Lou says:

        While a bump stock is a stupid toy, it should not be banned by fiat. The actual banning of the bump stock is not the main problem. The main problem is a bureaucrat made them illegal with the flick of a pen. That is not how our government is supposed to work. By not currently taking the case, and lower courts ruling in favor of the ban, they are giving government unlimited power in changing laws they don’t like, without the approval of the legislature.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          I agree with M1.

          Even if full auto registry was still open I’m unsure if I’d buy one due to ammo costs. I don’t like the bump stock, but the ban is unconstitutional PERIOD. Executive over reach, bureaucrat BS, and should be a slam dunk for the SCOTUS.

        2. avatar AC says:

          Look, I think probably the best way to deal with this problem is to ignore the law in mass… you do not need a large number but more than one would certainly be better. With criminal charges in play the courts are forced to deal with it. And once charged with a crime, one is constitutionally protected and guaranteed full due process and the right to introduce evidence. And the amount of evidence that can be introduced in favor of the defense is pretty substantial. And let’s also not forget that sometimes the solution is right there under your nose. As a case in point, consider the following:

          The lack of authority that recently came up in regulating that much demonized firearm that in fact does NOT meet the very definition of a firearm that their very own law requires… the AR-15.

          So far two cases have been won… AND, a federal judge has ruled on the matter, that an AR-15 lower receiver is NOT a firearm! And if a AR-15 lower is NOT a firearm under the definition in the law, how can a plastic stock meet the definition???

          CNN article and short news video clip here: https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/ex-atf-agent-ar-15/index.html

          “If they have a problem with someone telling the truth, who is the bad guy”? – Daniel O’Kelly, retired ATF agent & expert witness

          Let’s not overlook that the law is clearly on the right side…
          “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886)

      2. Not about need.

        Last I checked this is America and as Americans we do things for fun and “to see what happens”.

        Either it’s “shall not be infringed” or it’s not.

      3. avatar John adams says:

        Then you are part of the problem. You are not a 2a guy period AND you are not a constitutionalist. Finally, you dont know shit about the law.

      4. avatar Wayne J. Barricklow says:

        You’re missing the worst part of this. It’s not how useful the bump stock is. It’s the fact that we changed the definition of “machine gun” from machine gun to any part of a machine gun, to anything that enables a gun to fire more than round with one pull of the trigger, to
        (today) anything that makes you pull the trigger fast.

      5. avatar Hillbilly says:

        Wow, you really think they are gonna let you keep anything else? Oh wait it’s the bill of needs and not rights. Automatic weapons are neither inherently dangerous and in common use, seeing as they are the main weapon of our armed forces. We don’t need help from people like you go be a Fudd somewhere else. There is no right to hunt, sporting arms clause and so on and so forth in the 2nd amendment only shall not be infringed.

      6. avatar frank speak says:

        except that one lays the groundwork for the other………

      7. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

        Ed D-you are only a gun owner, and not 2nd Amendment supporter. The 2nd Amendment is meant for Citizens to be able to say no with force, when a government demands permits for self-defense. A bumpstock can empty a magazine 2 seconds faster in a gun fight, and no person in a gun fight has every complained when suppressive fire capabilities are being employed by their side.

        A 8-10 thug swat team would not do well enforcing unconstitutional laws, against a Citizen with suppressive fire capabilities, which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

      8. avatar StLPro2A says:

        You merely by owning an AR does not make you a reasoned 2A spokesperson any more than owning a car makes you a reasoned spokesperson for NASCAR. Your inability to see no reason for anyone to have bump stock or even real full auto AR is of no concern to anyone. It is only your opinion. Actually, I see no reason for you to have that opinion. But, I’d sign on the dotted line to fight…and have….for your right to have that opinion. Just don’t let it affect my preference/right to have the bump stock or even full auto. At that point we have a fight potential.

      9. avatar John R DeMaagd says:

        You are a Fudd, you cannot be for the 2nd Amendment but….. You need to read the Bill of Rights and a history book or two. People like you, is the reason we are having our rights trampled on in the first place.

  3. avatar Suffering says:

    Buh, buh, but muh courts!
    They do not care about your rights. None of them.

    1. avatar Michael in AK says:

      exactly…soap box, ballot box, cartridge box….

      1. avatar Dave says:

        You missed the big one, pine box. 🙂

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Ba-dum-tss

  4. avatar John says:

    Would you please report the story correctly. Gorsuch did file a dissent and indicated that Chevron would not apply. According to his dissent it was an interlocutory appeal (not a final judgment), and even he would not have granted cert because of that fact.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      What does that mean for the future of this issue?

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Per magic 8ball ask again later.

        1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

          LOL somebody who knows SCOTUS

    2. avatar IN Dave says:

      You are correct John. Bearing Arms has more coverage, on that portion of it, on their site.

    3. See the post that just went up with his full statement.

  5. avatar Dude says:

    Can people now can sue the government (and win) in order to recoup costs from being mislead?

  6. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    There is good news from SCOTUS today :

    “SCOTUS Agrees to Hear New Challenge to Obamacare”

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/reaganmccarthy/2020/03/02/scotus-obamacare-ruling-n2562676

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      So the Republican majority supreme court has upheld republican president Donald Trump’s gun control efforts to ban bump stocks.

      After Democratic president Barack Hussein Obama‘s administration had okayed bump stocks.

      Please, tell us again about how the Democrats want to take your guns while the Republicans including Trump want to preserve your gun rights, the children love a good fairytale.

      “In 2010, under the Obama administration, the ATF found that the devices were legal. But under the Trump administration, officials revisited that determination and found it incorrect. The revised regulation requires owners either to destroy their bump stocks or surrender them. The government estimates hundreds of thousands of the devices have been sold.”

      As a famous man once said, “there are none so blind as those who will not see”

      1. avatar jwm says:

        You must be walking around with a cane and shades. You honestly think anyone here is dumb enough to believe hillary or bernie or bloomberg would not take away guns? Seriously?

        If you are an example of the caliber of our opponents then we cannot lose.

        1. avatar Meathead says:

          They can only disarm us if we ALLOW them to disarm us. Nullification is not unknown.

      2. avatar Brent Mack says:

        Listen to Bloomberg and move to ny if that’s not enough move to nyc then I want a full report by the end of the week

      3. avatar James Campbell says:

        “….Please, tell us again about how the Democrats want to take your guns while the Republicans including Trump want to preserve your gun rights…”

        It’s been explained (ad nauseam) in multiple comment sections over the last few weeks.
        You just move along to the next TTAG story comment section when your BS gets called out.

        1. avatar Joe says:

          Most if not all of the democrappers have come out publicly and said they will CONFISCATE OUR GUNS IF ELECTED!!! ILL STILL TAKE TRUMP!!!

      4. avatar Wayne J. Barricklow says:

        I understand that we have to choose the one that takes our rights away a little at a time over the ones who take our rights a lot at one time. That doesn’t make Republicans our saviors. They just screw us slightly less than Democrats.

  7. avatar A says:

    Can someone walk me through why this is an issue? its technically not part of a gun and it in of its self does not fire a round. If the ATF or the Gov wants to ban it why is this a massive violation of 2A. Unless its the slippery slope theory….
    For some perspective I believe automatic weapons s/b legal per a literal reading of the 2A, NFA is unconstitutional as is the GCA

    1. avatar 12G Shotgun says:

      The reason this issue became important- is cause Bump Fire Stocks were approved devices under the previous administrations ATF.

      The ATF even included letters with these devices that confirmed that they did not change a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun…heck they are saying the device itself is a machine gun.

      Bump Fire Stocks do not meet the legal definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.

      Now the ATF is saying Bump Stocks convert a semi-automatic into a machine gun…contrary to what the law says.

      Estimates are that 500,000 people have lawfully purchased and use these devices.
      Now they are being told to destroy their property or turn them over for destruction.

      They will not even be compensated for the lost of their privste property.

      Owners of these devices want to keep their property.

      While these rapid fire devices are not technically part of the firearm or are a firearm, there is the possibility of them still being considered arms.

      A 9th circuit decision last year on so called large capacity magazine out of California- a judge ruled that magazines of various sizes are considered Arms and are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

      While a small percentage of the population owns these devices- they still have rights and desire to have the courts uphold their rights.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “They will not even be compensated for the lost of their private property.”

        This is a major problem, and I don’t personally care about bump stocks. Imagine building a business around this product, then suddenly being told it’s illegal. I imagine there are lawsuits against the government to recoup losses.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Not the first time either, Calico went out of business because of the ’94 Clinton crime of a bill. Their whole business model was “mostly functional guns with gigantic magazines”, so the 10 round limit killed ’em.

      2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Even if you don’t care about bump stocks, the precedent of having the ATF change definitions upon executive demand is horrible. If they can just change the definition to declare anything an NFA firearm, that places a huge restriction on gun owners.

        1. avatar Wayne J. Barricklow says:

          This is the big problem. Machine gun is basically defined now as anything that makes you shoot a gun fast, instead of multiple shots per one trigger pull. ATF can define machine gun literally any way they want. Congress doesn’t have to enact an assault weapons ban. All ATF has to do is define a semi auto as a gun you can shoot too fast, and it’s a machine gun.

  8. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Wait til muh President hears about this he gonna kick some libtard ass! and take names. MAGA. He gonna appoint all the good judges in all day right places.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      Are you a moron? It was Obama who said it was legal and Trump who caved to political pressure. MAGA that and choke on it.

  9. avatar George from Alaska says:

    There go braces and binary triggers.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      My thought exactly. How many of us now have AR pistols, made popular due to the ATF’s decision that the braces are legal? This falls into the same exact category of scrutiny and vulnerability. So if the ATF becomes emboldened and suddenly rules (which would depend upon the diktat of a current Director, a single individual) that braces no longer fit their definition of what can be “shouldered”, then umpteen ARs out there with shorter barrels would suddenly become re-classified as illegal SBRs overnight.

      Slippery slope, this. Repeal the NFA & GCA. Dismantle the ATF, or at least remove the firearms division and rename the department as the BATE.

  10. avatar enuf says:

    The Gorsuch statement, four pages:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-296_8n59.pdf

    So the rejection was due to the petition being sloppily written? The question begs for someone competent to try again.

    1. avatar ZBM-2 says:

      No, the rejection was because:
      1. The case is still ongoing, and no final ruling has been put out by the circuit court yet. This was an appeal to a PRELIMINARY ruling, which could change between now and when the final ruling comes out.
      2. This is not the only ongoing challenge, and no decisions have been issued at the circuit level for those yet either.

      What Gorsuch basically just said was “They can still change their mind, come back to us if they don’t pull their head out of their ass.”

  11. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Just think…if the drama queen hilliary was at the helm every gun the perp used in vegas would be banned and for self defense you’d be shooting spit balls through a straw.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    1. avatar S.Crock says:

      No because when Democrats propose gun control, Republicans grow balls and stand up to it. Thats what happened after the Sandy Hook shooting. But when Republicans are in power and support gun control, all we hear is how much worse it would have been if a Democrat was in power.

      Don’t get me wrong, Dems are still more anti gun. But I’m tired of people acting like Republicans are the pro gun good guys. They are just the slightly less anti gun slightly less bad guys.

      1. avatar Phil says:

        This ^ unfortunately many people can’t bring themselves to reality on TTAG. But yeah, let’s continue with the 2 party political system it has worked so well so far.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Really?

      So let’s see, we balance your speculation about Hillary against the fact that Republican president Donald Trump has indeed banNed bump stocks and his appointees on the Supreme Court have refused to hear a case challenging the ban.

      Obama signed a bill into law that loosened restrictions on carrying firearms on hundreds of thousands of federally controlled acres, expanding gun rights for millions of Americans.

      And in his three years in office, how his Republican Donald Trump expanded gun rights in America?

      Y’all done been snookered…

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        It appears that Republicans are abusing drugs. They can’t see what’s in-front of them and they can’t think their way out of a box. They must have a lot of alcohol and prescriptions. They’re starting to behave like Bernie bros.

  12. Stop fighting for bump stocks. Ask for repeal of the NFA.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Depending on the court’s next few decisions that could be a less impossible moonshot for the decade.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Repeal the NFA will only happen when the general public is educated about their rights. And unfortunately, the powers-that-be in the gun Community are not interested in doing that.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        The police will not allow the ATF and NFA to be done away with.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          and, apparently…neither will congress…….

  13. avatar LKB says:

    Everybody calm down.

    This is a republish of an AP article. As the MSM typically does when reporting complicated legal decisions, the idiot reporter botched it.

    The procedural position of Guedes is that the district court refused to enter a preliminary injunction. That’s not uncommon — a preliminary injunction, especially one that enjoins the government, is supposed to be an extraordinary remedy sparingly applied, and only in extraordinary cases. (I know, I know, Obama’s appointees don’t follow this basic maxim of federal procedure, but that’s a different issue.) However, **a denial of a preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits.**

    A denial (or grant) of a preliminary injunction may, however, be appealed immediately (usually, except for special circumstances, you can only appeal from a final judgment). However, such an appeal is adjudicated on an “abuse of discretion” standard, which is very difficult to meet, particularly where there is not settled law on point. This point alone was going to make Guedes a very heavy lift, and candidly I was surprised it was relisted as many times as it was.

    Further, read the briefs in the case. While this appeal was of obvious importance to PotG, it was not couched as a 2A case — it was a rifle-shot at Chevron deference as a way of challenging the law. From the fact that it was relisted as many times as it was, and from Thomas’ recent dissent from a denial of cert, there is certainly a faction on the Court interested in ditching Chevron deference. More importantly, if the Court comes down with a new 2A rule in NYsR&PA or another pending case, Guedes is still free to raise the 2A issue in the lower courts — again, the district court has yet to reach the merits.

    Am I disappointed that Los Supremos didn’t grant cert? Sure, as this would have been a great vehicle to get rid of Chevron deference.
    Am I surprised, especially given the procedural posture of the case? No.
    Does it auger anything as to what the Court will do when it addresses a real 2A case? I do not think so.

  14. avatar Rickster says:

    Repeal all unconstitutional gun laws. All democraps running are for taking all guns from every citizen in the country. All anyone need do is pay attention. They may as well all be moms ,Hogs Blooming fools everytown for disarmament of private property. The SCOTUS needs to shed all the leftist’s and Trump is the only option I see . Maybe I’m wrong idk .are you willing to chance it with any demturd?

  15. avatar Stoopidlibers says:

    The speed at which a weapon can fire is not determined by a bumper stock. Can we please get some experts on a subject before passing laws on the subject.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      They did, the NFA is exquisitely detailed on firearm definitions. There’s been no new law, just a new ruling that is clearly against the letter of the law.

  16. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Guess that means I can’t go salvage diving at the coordinates of my terrible boating accident???? Can’t sew belt loops back on my jeans? Can’t glue my rubber bands back together???? Can’t reattach my fingers???? Bummer……

  17. avatar Nanashi says:

    Kavanaugh continues to be a mistake.

  18. avatar Kevin Richard Moseman says:

    WHAT IS NOT CLEAR THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS????????NO EXPIRATION DATE….AGAINST TYRANNY…..I WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE TYRANNY..

  19. avatar Keith Collins says:

    Trump also signed Fix NICS. Drip, drip, drip…

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      He also setup a federal gun control task force to help enforce gun control and red flag confiscations.

  20. avatar Philip Twiss says:

    This all came out of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at the Mandala Bay Hotel -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

    Funny, the shooter killed himself and 58 others… No one seems to be able to put together a time line… No one seems to know why he did it… No one seems to be able to say which guns he used even though there were 1,100 rounds fired between 10:05 PM & 10:15 (110 rounds a minute or ~ 4 mags sustained for 10 minutes) … Really doesn’t seem possible for 64 year old accountant / professional gambler with no military training. But, I guess you have to do something even if this really stinks to high heaven…

  21. avatar Joseph Bellinger says:

    Take me to jail. We won’t comply

  22. avatar Nww says:

    I expect even so called conservative/pro second amendment judges to be fully against the ownership of fully automatic weapons and any item that helps increase semi auto rate of fire. I’m not holding my breathe on any kind of reversal on bumpstocks. Unfortunately the NFA is too ingrained in both legal and cultural thinking. Hopefully that will change through peaceful means. I think if the minutemen had todays options they wouldve chosen M4’s, FAL’s, AK’s, M240’s, M203’s etc.

  23. Dont really care about bump stocks but do care that people have the right to own one. Or if the government wants you to give them up you must be compensated for your property.

  24. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    “The administration, which typically supports gun rights, argued the court should not take up the case.”

    Wooops…. house that one taste guys?

  25. avatar ExTexas says:

    TRUMP is distracting the anti 2A gun banners by making them chase their tails fussing over a range toy. Just because you do not understand TRUMP’S tactics does not mean that he doesn’t have a larger plan. TRUMP is a 2A DEFENDER and I thank G_D for him EVERY DAY. Have faith. This is all part of the plan. TRUMP 2020 … AND BEYOND. VOTE!

    1. avatar Hillbilly says:

      The comedy is gold on this website today!

  26. avatar Alan says:

    My view of ATF orders or demands that people who purchased a device, this Bump Stock, that at the time was completely legal to make, sell and possess, now destroy or surrender without compensation of any kind, correct me if I’m wrong, has precious little chance of being greeted with significant levels of compliance. Of course, some people will comply, however they will be a minority of owners.

    As for the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear arguments against the foolishness of this action or order, the bounds of polite conversation tend to limit such comments as I find myself tempted to offer. Suffice it to say that The Court has not covered itself with glory in ducking this issue.

    1. avatar T.L. Kiser Sr says:

      The only thing the court could do was look at the language of the 2nd Amendment. It addresses “firearms” not accessories. Therefore, all they could do was either ignore the appeal or issue a decision that would prevent further appeals on the issue. The decision they made leaves a bit of wiggle room for some lawyer to get creative with a new argument. Someone reading this is about to bring up ammo as an accessory. It is an integral part that makes the firearm operate as designed. Bottom line is, a bump stock is NOT a firearm.

  27. avatar Kurt Kasdorf says:

    If we in the States would get smart and hang anybody that commits a crime with gun and kills someone unless it is proven that it is self defense than the person should be hanged within 6 month after the trial. The hanging should happen on times square (any cities do have a times square. The reason I am saying this no gun ever killed a person it is always the person behind a gun, second why do taxpayers have to keep these people alive feeding him till he or she dies and given them first class medical assistant.

  28. avatar L2A3 says:

    Has ANYONE even seen the final report from the FBI or ATF on that incident. The last I heard was that it was a FUBAR investigation from the start involving the Keystone cops running the show. I noted that from the news reports and “official” statements.

  29. avatar Join GOA,FPC,SAF says:

    IN need of real Justices who at least heard of the Constitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    IMPEACH non 2a justices ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

  30. avatar george burns says:

    what about binary triggers?

    1. avatar Phil says:

      They have not been reclassified as binary trighers meet the literal definition of one action of the trigger. They will have a much harder time banning binary triggers. But if they rule a stock can make your semi auto into a machine gun who knows. It could lead to a semi auto ban following those lines of thought.

      1. avatar StLPro2A says:

        Will belt loops and rubber bands be next???? Re-classify a belt loop, mix in a little “constructive possession elixir” and anyone with an AR and a pair of jeans becomes a criminal. Slippery slopes…..

  31. avatar Fags says:

    Looks like all of the so-called patriots in this country are no more than soy-filled diaper wearing beta cuck faggots. 🤣🤣🤣

  32. avatar Dennis Karoleski says:

    Remember at one time Massachusetts tried to define any handgun that only required a single pull of the trigger to be fired as a “semiautomatic” which would mean all double-action revolvers would be classified as “semiautomatics”.

  33. avatar T.L. Kiser Sr says:

    The bump stock is not a firearm or a necessary component needed to fire a firearm. All it does is alter the rate of fire. It is an add on. An accessory. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say “right to keep and bear arms and accessories”. It specifically says firearms and, again, a bumpstock is not a firearm. Neither is a grenade launcher or a 20mm cannon but we won’t go there for now. I really don’t care either way about bump stocks. Come to take my guns and there will be a fight. Come to get a bump stock and I’ll comply. The lack of it means I shoot at a slower rate. But then, with a semi auto, about 2 rounds per second is ok with me. BTW, ammo is a necessity for a firearm to function as designed. Regulations on ammo would be an infringement.

  34. avatar PhilipW says:

    All branches of the government, including the SCOTUS, are power-hungry, anti-gun tyrants. The communists have so-infiltrated all facets of our government, culture and society that they are in control, but are restrained only by the armed populace. ANY way they can chip-away our gun rights will be exercised, regardless how small and seemingly insignificant. Death by a million cuts.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email