The Trump campaign has called for respect and adherence to the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down the Trump administration's 2018 bump stock ban. This ruling has significant implications for federal regulatory power and the interpretation of firearm laws.
The Supreme Court's decision, announced earlier this month, was a contentious one, reflecting deep divisions among the justices. The ruling overturned a regulation established during Trump's presidency that classified bump stocks—devices enabling semi-automatic weapons to fire continuously like automatic ones—as machine guns.
LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has struck down former President Trump's bump stock ban, ruling 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its authority when it issued the rule. The opinion was written by Justice Thomas: https://t.co/canMOuyFLv pic.twitter.com/C8SgYkESXW
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 14, 2024
This classification effectively banned their possession and sale following the tragic 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where the shooter used bump stocks to increase his firing rate, resulting in 58 deaths and over 800 injuries.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, among others, highlighted concerns about the retroactive criminalization of bump stock owners who legally purchased the devices before the ban. He pointed out that up to half a million people could face felony charges, impacting their civil rights, including voting rights.
In our Constitutional republic, Congress makes the laws, not the administrative branch.
The Supreme Court just acknowledged this in a 6 to 3 decision invalidating Trump’s bump-stock ban. https://t.co/YbRa8j6ux1
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 14, 2024
The Trump campaign emphasized that while the ban was instituted in response to a horrific event, the rule should still be within the bounds of federal authority and consistent with the legal definition of machine guns. The campaign’s spokesperson stated that respecting the Supreme Court's decision is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that regulatory agencies do not exceed their statutory limits.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed similar concerns, questioning the fairness of prosecuting individuals unaware of the rule change. The justices grappled with the balance between legislative clarity and executive enforcement, underscoring the principle of separation of powers.
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over gun control and regulatory authority in the United States.
It also reflects the broader implications for administrative actions taken without clear legislative backing. As such, the Trump campaign's call for respect of the court's ruling aligns with a commitment to legal and constitutional principles, regardless of the contentious nature of the issues involved.
