November 3, 2023
Is the Trump-era ban on bump stocks unconstitutional? Does that regulation violate your 2nd Amendment right?
Well – today – the Supreme Court said they will decide. This now makes two major gun cases the supreme court will hear this term.
So – let me give you a little more context about the case.
Remember that horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas back in 2017? Well, the shooter used what are called bump stock on several of his weapons. Just to make it simple, a bump stock is an attachment that can be added to a firearm that enables a shooter to rapidly fire multiple rounds from semi-automatic weapon after an initial trigger pull. At the time – bump stocks were legal.
But after LAs Vegas, in 2018, at the direction of then-President Trump – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives changed the definition of the word machinegun in the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1986. That change meant bump stocks would now be categorized as part of the machine gun family and would therefore be banned. By 2019 they became illegal to own.
Well, several lawsuits were filed in several different states challenging this definition change. Over the years multiple rulings in federal appeals courts have come down supporting the ATF’s decision to change the definition – which ultimately banned bump stocks. But in January of this year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. They said ATF didn’t have the authority to change the definition of the word machinegun. Instead, the court ruled, congress would have to change the law if they wanted to get rid of bump stocks.
Well, the Biden Administration appealed, and today since there are conflicting rulings the Supreme Court said they will hear the case to determine if indeed – it’s constitutional for the ATF to classify a bump stock as a machinegun. And as I said at the beginning of the video this isn’t the only gun case this term. Next week the court is also going to hear the United States vs Rahimi case. I told you all about it in this video back in July. In this case, the court will have do answer the question — does someone with a court-approved domestic violence restraining order have a 2nd Amendment right to possess guns?
So how will the justices answer these questions? Well, they’re going to use the landmark test they came up with during the last term called the Bruen Test. It says – modern day laws must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Basically, the test says — in order for any modern-day gun laws to be constitutional – those laws must have ties to gun laws from America’s founding. They don’t have to be twins but they have to have some traditional roots.
The court will hear the bump stock case next year and will hear the Rahimi case next week. Decisions on both are expected at the end of the term in June.
Read the case record for Garland v. Cargill, 22-976
