Supreme Court Agrees To Take Up Challenge To Trump-Era Bump Stock Ban | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Tim Pearce.

    The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a challenge to a ban on bump stocks put in place by former President Donald Trump after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.

    The Biden administration asked the high court to uphold the Trump-era policy. Gun rights supporters also requested the court take up the issue and strike the ban down, according to NBC News.

    The ban has been litigated in lower courts for years. Federal courts have reached differing conclusions on the issue, which is whether the Trump administration had the authority under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 to ban bump stocks.

    The United States has long banned machine guns, which are capable of firing multiple rounds per each time the trigger is pulled. A bump stock is a device that can be attached to a semi-automatic firearm and reduce the length of time between trigger pulls by harnessing the gun's energy from recoil.

    Officials estimate over half a million bump stocks were sold in the United States before the Trump administration ordered them turned over to authorities, according to The Hill.

    The case hinges on the boundaries of executive authority outlined in federal gun laws.

    "The interpretive rule did not alter or enlarge the scope of the statutory prohibition on possessing or transferring new machineguns," the Justice Department said in a court filing, according to The Hill. "The rule instead merely served to inform the public of ATF's considered view that bump stocks are 'machineguns' as Congress defined that term."

    But gun rights proponents disagree. Gun shop owner and firearms instructor Michael Cargill is one of the challengers to the Trump-era reinterpretation of the law. Cargill's legal team says that use of a bump stock does not fundamentally change the weapon into an automatic firearm.


    "A weapon is not a machine gun if something more is required of the shooter than a single function of the trigger to produce more than one shot," Cargill's Supreme Court brief said.

    "The plain meaning of that sentence is that a weapon is not a 'machinegun' if something more is required of the shooter than a single function of the trigger to produce more than one shot. And, as the Final Rule concedes, the shooter must do considerably more than pull the trigger once if he wishes the weapon to fire multiple shots," the brief says.

poll#201

Considering what real news is available for all to witness, and in great specificity, should one pursue what is true outside of the channeled realm of the corrupt corporate /legacy media, and: Is Institutionalized Corruption real, and is it a hindrance to sustaining our Constitutional Republic now, and for future generations of American citizens?

  Yes

  No

  Not sure

301 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

poll#175

Understanding that this fragile Republic of the self-governed is in a precarious space in our nation's vast history: What is your honor bound patriotic duty in helping to sustain the continuance of these United States of America?

  I will depend on my Democratic Socialist politicians to continue to march hard toward the Left to provide Diversity, Equity and Inclusion for all who think and do as they are told.

  I will defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and support all elected leaders who pledge to protect and insure the continued sovereignty of this Representative Republic.

  I am very concerned about maintaining my current life style without working. I was told that as long as I vote Democrat, I had nothing to worry about ... but now I worry.

288 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?