Critics Fundamentally Misconstrue the Supreme Court's Bump Stock Ruling
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.

After the Supreme Court overturned the Trump administration's bump stock ban last week, critics complained that the justices had interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that rules out perfectly reasonable gun regulations. That was an odd complaint, because the case did not involve the Second Amendment.
The Court's decision upheld an important principle that goes far beyond gun control: Federal bureaucrats do not have the authority to invent new crimes by rewriting the law. All Americans, regardless of how they feel about gun rights, have a stake in that principle, which is crucial to the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the due process requirement of fair notice.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) saw last week's decision as a sign that the Supreme Court plans to "fundamentally rewrite the Second Amendment," which will "make it very hard for Congress or state legislatures to be able to regulate guns." MSNBC commentator Joyce Vance had a similar objection: "Does the history & tradition of our country really suggest the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to arm Americans with guns that fire 400 to 800 rounds per minute?"
Although Murphy is a lawyer and Vance is a law professor, they completely misconstrued what this case was about. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks.
The products that the ATF targeted are designed to assist bump firing, which involves pushing a rifle forward to activate the trigger by bumping it against a stationary finger, then allowing recoil energy to push the rifle backward, resetting the trigger. As long as the shooter maintains the requisite amount of forward pressure and keeps his finger in place, the rifle will fire repeatedly.
The "interpretive rule" at issue in this case, which was published in December 2018 and took effect three months later, banned stock replacements that facilitate this rapid-firing technique by allowing the rifle's receiver to slide back and forth. The ATF did that by classifying rifles equipped with bump stocks as machine guns, which contradicted the statutory definition and the agency's long-standing interpretation of it.
Under federal law, a machine gun is a weapon that "automatically" fires more than one round "by a single function of the trigger." A bump-fired rifle plainly does not fit that definition: It shoots just one round each time the trigger is activated and, given the manual effort that is necessary to fire additional rounds, does not fire "automatically."
Bump stocks became notorious after a gunman used them in an attack that killed 58 people at a Las Vegas music festival in October 2017. But even legislators who wanted to ban them recognized that the ATF could not do that on its own.
Because "the ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump-fire stocks," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) said, "legislation is the only answer." Noting that "the law has not changed," Feinstein warned that "the gun lobby" would "have a field day" with the ATF's "about face," which relied partly on "a dubious analysis claiming that bumping the trigger is not the same as pulling it."
Feinstein was right about that. But contrary to Murphy's take, recognizing that the ATF overstepped its authority does not mean Congress is powerless to act.
"The statutory text is clear, and we must follow it," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion. "An event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law's meaning." But "now that the situation is clear," he added, "Congress can act."
Whatever the merits of a bump stock ban, in other words, regulators cannot unilaterally impose one, especially when that decision suddenly criminalizes the conduct of gun owners who abided by the law as the ATF had repeatedly explained it. Allowing that sort of lawless edict would be a recipe for tyranny.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Critics Fundamentally
MisconstrueDon't Care About the Supreme Court's Bump Stock RulingFixed that for you.
The bulk of the criticism is of two kinds. Preaching to the choir, or further villianizing the supreme court. All the "critics" want to do is create discontent for their own ends. Specifics don't matter. The actual law doesn't matter. There's no principle behind the criticism other than power.
That sentiment is pretty much universal, these days.
Well, I for one, am shocked, Shocked! that gun control advocates are liars who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Shocked!
However, they DO know that we must be disarmed before they fully reveal their plans.
Given the full on fascism in place, I can't imagine what the final solution will be.
"Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) saw last week's decision as a sign that the Supreme Court plans to "fundamentally rewrite the Second Amendment," which will "make it very hard for Congress or state legislatures to be able to regulate guns." "
That's not rewriting the Second amendment, that's just restoring it to the meaning it was understood to have from the beginning; The notion that the 2nd amendment DOESN'T get in the way of regulating guns is a very recent one. Basically arose about the middle of the 20th century, when the federal government finally started getting interested in gun control, and the prevailing understanding of that amendment started to look like it would be trouble.
As a result, there started to become a fad in judicial circles to pretend that the 2nd amendment meant something else. That fad never really caught on outside academia and some of the judiciary, and in any event was fairly short-lived.
The Southern states had gun control after the Civil war, as part of Jim Crow, (Armed blacks are hard to keep down!) but that was at a time when the 2nd amendment was construed to not apply to the states thanks the the Slaughterhouse perfidy, so until the federal government got into the gun control game, there was no motive to pretend the 2nd amendment wasn't an obstacle to gun control, and people were quite frank about it actually meaning what the Court is gradually confirming again.
Under the Miller precedent, of course, machine guns, as military arms, are particularly protected, not out of bounds. That's how the Court read the 2nd amendment as recently as 1939.
Murphy is up for re-election this year. He's probably relatively safe, but his main concern right now is scaring the leftists in his state into donating to his campaign/party and to show up to vote for him and keep him from having to find gainful employment for another 6 years.
This ruling strikes at the heart of the power of the Regulatory State. Pray for the safety of our Supreme Court justices. The have declared war on a powerful and evil enemy.
There are few possibilities here which have overlaps:
1. They do not know what the case was actually about and just gave a canned response to what is superficially a gun control case.
2. The Left is very enamored of the concept of "regulations", and anything that limits their ability to impose regulations is intolerable (unless it is abortion, that is the only activity that cannot be regulated).
3. They think attacking the 2nd Amendment is rhetorically better because they do not think it protects a legitimate right, rather than defending a bureaucracy that refuses to constrained by statutory authority, That is, dictatorship.
Supporters of the ruling, including those who should know better, are trumpeting it as a win for the Second Amendment. If anything, the oral argument in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett said bump stocks should be banned, coupled with Justice Alito's concurrence inviting Congress to ban bump stocks, is a disaster for any Second Amendment challenge to the machine gun ban.
One of the biggest problems with the ATF bump stock rule is that it is possible to bump fire a semi auto rifle without a bump stock or any other special equipment.
Dobbs didn't make abortion illegal and this case didn't make bump stocks legal. The justices are simply forcing legislatures to do their job as required by the constitution they claim to uphold.
They know what the ruling means; but playing politics is an entirely different matter. In doing so they will misconstrue endlessly.
Make no mistake; when the progressive left wants something, they will seek to get it BAMN; Constitution, separation of powers, and regulatory overreach be damned. Because, like the nuclear option, it will never come back to bite the ass of anyone who sees themselves as morally superior.
Misconstrue? Lie is only 3 letters and one syllable.
Murphy is an idiot if the imagines this was a 2A case signaling anything about the future 2A decisions. It was a regulatory authority case, where the executive was determined to have overstated their ability to regulate beyond what the words in the law say they can regulate, much like the old puddles are not navigable waterways decision ( Sackett v. EPA). SCOTUS intentionally made this NOT a 2A case.
I agree with this ruling.
Lawmakers make laws.
Law enforcers enforce laws.
I’d like the cops to have more power to keep us safe from the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.
But more power for cops can only come from lawmakers; cops can’t just take it for themselves.
What makes you think the leadership and spokesholes actually want to keep us safe from the "crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member?
Never forget this.
The same side that whines about how the police habitually hunt down and gun down unarmed Black men, who whine about overincarceration, who whine about the criminal justice system being systemically racist..
..call for stricter gun control laws which would be enforced by these very same police in this very same syastem!
What really motivates the leadership and spokesholes is hostility against the White male conservative, their political enemy. They associate gun ownership with the White male conservative, so they support infringing on gun ownership.
And that is against whom they intend to enforce these laws.
The cops know who the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member are.
They also know who signs their pay checks.
If they arrest too many of the "wrong type" of people on gun control charges, they will be told to stop.
So has someone proposed a bill to update the law so bump stocks can be banned along with machine guns?
They'll wrap it up in a full "assault weapons" ban and then try to get political mileage out of it not passing.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked bipartisan legislation Tuesday that would have outlawed bump stocks after the Supreme Court struck down a ban on the rapid-fire gun accessory used in the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history.
Democrats tried to force a voice vote on the bill to ban bump stocks, a tactic often used by both parties when they know that they don’t have the votes to pass legislation but want to bring an issue to the Senate floor. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, would ban the sale of the devices, similar to the rule issued by President Donald Trump’s administration after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival in 2017 with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.
But "now that the situation is clear," he added, "Congress can act."
Maybe on bump stocks. But not on AR-15s or AR-10s or whatever their ubiquitous catch-all "assault weapons" term means. Sandy saw to that. Probably unintentionally, but hey I'll take it.
“LIE.” The word you’re looking for is “LIE.” Critics LIE about the ruling.
The irony is strong with this one.
Probably the single most "dictatorial" action taken by the trump administration was the President essentially instructing his ATF to claim a level of authority which was determined to be inappropriate under probably the single most "activist" and authoritarian AG this country has had in generations (possibly ever). And the people who consider trump to be a "would be dictator" and are not only willing but eager to weaponize the courts on "banana republic" rules in order to (in their minds) prevent trump from "turning this country into a place where that can happen" love the policy and lament its reversal.
Just as the same people who swore that trump would "make himself king" also went ripshit when he passed on the opportunity to use the Covid pandemic as his "Reichstag" moment and that he "must be replaced" because of his lack of top-down authoritarian reaction to the virus. Even pointing to a leader as an exemplar of what was "great leadership" who went on to actually postpone their country's scheduled elections due to 12 detected cases in the capitol city.
MAGA writer Sullum strains credulity when he writes "As long as the shooter maintains the requisite amount of forward pressure and keeps his finger in place, the rifle will fire repeatedly" followed just 2 paragraphs later by the contradictory "It shoots just one round each time the trigger is activated and, given the manual effort that is necessary to fire additional rounds, does not fire 'automatically"".
Sorry Jacob, we both know they didn't "misconstrue" a damn thing. They're playing fearmongering politics which is what they like best. They quite clearly see the writing left on the wall from this case will wind up in the decision in the companion cases of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Being authoritarian lawmakers who, so they can keep their names off the record of punishing private actors, love, love, love executive overreach because it keeps them off the hook.
It's why Schumer and cronies pushed a ban on anything that, nebulously, "increases the rate of fire" of semi automatic weapons yesterday asking for "unanimous consent" where only one person has to say no. There's only one person on record who objects and all the D politicians in purple states get to stay off record because they'd probably have constituents hold it against them if they did.
It's all smoke and mirrors, trying to score political points based on irrational fear and distract from the important issues like inflation, border security, etc. that are much higher up in the recent polling data. Sorry Oz, we've all seen behind the curtain so this game isn't going to play well for long.
The fear isn't irrational. Plenty of people living in the ghetto have every reason to fear the crook and the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member.
Try walking the streets of the ghetto at 1 AM if you doubt this.
I won't even stop at an urban gas station anymore at 1 AM.
Ditto, not even in my dreams.
The fear is totally irrational because the politicians are pushing fear of guns, gun parts, and gun accessories. Heck, they even say stupid things like banning bump stocks, AR-15s, or Glock switches (already banned - shhh, don't tell the politicants) will make people more safe. This is false because while the law abiding people will give up banned items but they aren't the problem. The problem is the mugger, carjacker, and gang member simply don't care because it isn't like their next drive by shooting isn't magically going to be more illegal than it was a week before.
So yeah, a fear of dangerous criminals isn't irrational but a fear of certain tools and random hunks of metal and plastic, known as parts or accessories, is absolutely irrational bordering on bonkers.
Fortunately I don't have any need to go anywhere near a ghetto much less at 1 AM when I'm asleep because I have a job to go to in the morning.