The Supreme Court delved into the mechanics of semiautomatic rifles Wednesday in arguments over a Trump-era ban on bump stocks that let such weapons fire with the speed and lethality of military arms like the M16.
The Trump administration classified the device as an illegal machine gun after a shooter armed with bump stocks opened fire on a Las Vegas music festival in October 2017, killing some 60 people and wounding hundreds more. But in 2023 a federal appeals court in New Orleans said the way bump stocks function falls outside the legal definition of a machine gun, prompting the Biden administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The court at times appeared sympathetic to the government’s view that the devices should be illegal under laws tracing from the 1930s outlawing machine guns and modifications that convert weapons to automatic.
“Can you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machine guns but we should not ban bump stocks?” said Justice Samuel Alito.
Congress first took aim at machine guns after mobsters like John Dillinger and Al Capone used them in bank robberies and gangland wars. Federal law prohibited weapons that fired multiple shots “by a single function of the trigger.” Bump stocks, which came on the market about 20 years ago, work by harnessing a weapon’s recoil to repeatedly bump the trigger into the shooter’s finger after the first pull, initiating a sequence that can fire hundreds of bullets a minute.
Here are the top political news stories for today.
@DinosaurJonnyRepublican2yrs2Y
I'm a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights and agree with the Court's 2008 decision that the constitution serves to protect an individual's right to possess firearms and use them in self-defense. However, as with all rights there are limits. Banning bump stocks seems to be a very reasonable limit.
@PacifistRaisinsGreen2yrs2Y
The idea that rights are limited is simply not true. OUR rights were outlined to limit the GOVERNMENT from impeding on them. There is absolutely no where in the Constitution which grants the government the right to limit our rights. There is nothing that says "Free speech EXCEPT hate" or "Keep and bear arms EXCEPT outside the home." The idea that our rights can be limited was made up by the very government this is supposed to be limited so they can ignore our rights.
Government exists to maintain civil order and "to effect [the] Safety and Happiness" of the People. When one person's actions impact another's interests, it is entirely proper for government to regulate those actions. Free speech does not protect one's right to incite a riot (yell fire in a crowded theater). Rights are absolutely limited. The absence of limits is anarchy.
@PacifistRaisinsGreen2yrs2Y
And a proper test for rights being impaired is when one person uses force or fraud against another. Absent that, there is no rights violation at all.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Join in on more popular conversations.
