Supreme Court rejects another bump stock ban case

You said "If restrictions on automatic weapons are Constitutional" and then went on as if the answer to that was obviously yes. Sorry, but under the clear text and intent of the 2nd Amendment any ban on automatic weapons would be unconstitutional -- which is why congress did NOT ban automatic weapons when they wrote the rather dubious National Firearms Act in 1934. Under the NFA, automatic weapons are PERFECTLY LEGAL provided a tax is paid each time the automatic weapon is transferred to a new owner. The tax isn't even on the gun itself, but on the transfer.

This was congress's "attempt to lawyer around" the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has not directly addressed the constitutionality of restrictions on automatic weapons. The classic case cited as upholding the NFA was United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where SCOTUS ruled that a short barreled shotgun could be restricted because it was not useful to a militia. They may or may not be correct about the usefulness of short barrel shotguns, but clearly automatic weapons would be useful to a militia. So by the logic of Miller, restrictions on automatic weapons would be unconstitutional.

On the other hand, if we look to the standards described by SCOTUS in the recent decision in NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN, we would find no historic basis for restrictions on machine guns. So under the logic of Bruen, restrictions on automatic weapons would be unconstitutional.

So, the one thing you got right is "that's why the SCOTUS probably doesn't want to touch this."

MSG Thomas Currie -
You stated:
"and then went on as if the answer to that was obviously yes."
I went on with that "assumption", because under US law it is not an assumption, it is a currently a settled question of law. The SCOTUS has not ruled, but they let stand cases like Farmer v. Higgins that ruled such restrictions are Constitutional.

Article III Section 1 gives the judicial power to the system of lower courts set up by Congress as well as the SCOTUS. When lower courts rule on things and the SCOTUS refuses to hear challenges to those rulings, those rulings are the law of the land in the district they occurred in. So far there is no successful lower court ruling that states such a federal ban is unconstitutional and until and unless such a ruling is allowed to stand, the state of law in this country is that such federal bans are indeed Constitutional.

If you think you can apply Bruen's logic, go for it, try to buy an automatic weapon, get denied, and bring your case. Until you or someone else does that, the ban is Constitutional. The SCOTUS or lower courts would have to start ruling differently than they have previously. To be clear, it could happen, but it is currently settled law. Well as settled as any case law can be under stare decisis.

SPC Kevin Ford - -- you said "If you think you can apply Bruen's logic, go for it, try to buy an automatic weapon, get denied, and bring your case." But that makes no sense because I wouldn't be denied. I am fully qualified to buy and own an automatic weapon -- as are most of the people in this forum. No one has been prosecuted for possession of an automatic weapon -- they have been prosecuted for possession of an unregistered automatic weapon or for other administrivia.

As for your notion that simply because the Supreme Court has not heard a case, that somehow magically makes the matter settled, I would expect any adult to know better but I've seen that same nonsense repeated often enough to realize that most people have no clue how few cases the court actually hears from the many that are offered.

SCOTUS has dropped several major rulings recently West Virginia v EPA, NYSPRA v Bruen, and of course Dobbs v, Jackson Women's Health (which greatly impacted the midterm elections). I suspect they aren't looking to roil the political waters much more right now.

As for the Bump Stock Ban idiocy, how about we do the same thing SCOTUS is doing and just wait to see how the 5th Circuit rules on the case. There are multiple issues that have been and still are being litigated.

MSG Thomas Currie -
You stated:
"But that makes no sense because I wouldn't be denied. I am fully qualified to buy and own an automatic weapon -- as are most of the people in this forum. "

Tis the season to be pedantic..Lol. Sure we can get one made before mid 1986. But no new automatic weapons can be manufactured and registered for civilian ownership. To get standing to bring suit all you'd have to try and buy one made after 1986 and get denied. Have we picked our nits now?

You stated:
"As for your notion that simply because the Supreme Court has not heard a case, that somehow magically makes the matter settled, I would expect any adult to know better but I've seen that same nonsense repeated often enough to realize that most people have no clue how few cases the court actually hears from the many that are offered."

Now that's not what I said and I would hope you would do better than try and create a straw man. What I said was that the SCOTUS does not need to rule on a question of law for such a question to be considered settled law. That's how stare decisis works. Courts make decisions on questions on law and those decisions *should* be followed by other courts in that jurisdiction, particularly inferior courts. As far as I know there has been no case allowed to stand that brought into question the legality of the registration of new automatic firearms under the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Sure I'd have to go through every district to find out which ones have and haven't explicitly heard the case to know the state of settled law in that district but as a general statement there has been no conflict between districts on that question of law.

The SCOTUS rarely involves itself in the vast majority of cases referenced to it. They normally only are involved where there is an obvious error in questions of law or when different districts have ruled differently on questions of law. What the SCOTUS is in effect saying when it doesn't take an appeal is they don't think there may be a mistake or confusion around a question of law for the case large enough for them to get involved. Stare decisis exists regardless of their involvement and what's what creates what we consider "settled law"

You stated:
"...how about we do the same thing SCOTUS is doing and just wait to see how the 5th Circuit rules on the case."
No one is saying we are not, anyone can always be surprised by a ruling no matter how settled a question of law appears to be. That has nothing to do with what is considered settled law today and what is considered Constitutional. The general provisions around "The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986" are currently Constitutional based on current precedent and will remain that way until a higher or peer court to current rulings gets involved in rules differently.

I gave my opinion on why I don't think the SCOTUS wanted to touch it, you may have another. But is the "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986" currently Constitutional? Absolutely it is. Does that mean that in the future the SCOTUS or other court couldn't rule differently? Of course they could. The SCOTUS even occasionally shoots down their own precedent on questions of law. But that in no way impacts what is considered Constitutional today. Roe was Constitutional and considered a settled question of law, right up until it wasn't. BTW, that is why courts not honoring start decisis is considered problematic and should only (hopefully) be done very carefully and infrequently. Courts usually try to find ways to say the facts of a new controversy are somehow different from a prior controversy to justify a different conclusion than would perhaps be otherwise expected.