Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’

Whether they are needed by citizens or are too dangerous for the general public is not the issue. The question is if the ATF has authority to ban them without legislation. Like most of their regs, they don’t.

Pass a law if you want them banned.

It isn't a matter of "need". Cars and trucks kill more people in a similar number of minutes across the US every day. Yet we have all different types of vehicles many of which are not strictly "needed". Freedom is dangerous. I am not willing to give up my freedom for an illusory sense of safety. Do you believe that we should also ban motorized paragliders simply because HAMAS used them in a very successful sneak attack? The ban on bump stocks will be reviewed for constitutional considerations. If the law violates the Constitution, it should be struck down.

No one NEEDS a bump stock -- because they are silly toys that don't actually accomplish anything.
No one needs to ban them -- because they are silly toys that don't actually harm anyone.

The bump stock debacle was just one more case of the left getting ignorant people worked up over nothing so that they could attack guns and gun owners. Bump stocks to NOT make a gun fire any faster than you can fire that same gun by hand.

As for the Las Vegas shooting, no one actually knows IF a bump stock was used. The shooter had several guns, some of which had bump stocks, some didn't. No one knows whether any of the guns with a bump stock were used. What we do know is that if a bump stock were used it would have made absolutely no difference to a shooter rapid firing randomly into a crowded area far away. In just about any other sort of mass shooting scenario, a bump stock would have SAVED lives by making the shooter much less accurate and being very likely to jam.

The legal issues going to the Supreme Court have NOTHING to do with Las Vegas and nothing to do the the false claim that a bump stock somehow magically makes the gun "more deadly" -- the major legal issue before the court will be whether the ATF can simply make up their own laws to ban things that congress has refused to. Another issue that may be considered is the ATF's completely false re-definition of "machine gun" to somehow include a bump stock. This is interesting because the ATF's own experts repeatedly found that bump stocks do NOT fall within the legal definition of "machine gun" enacted by congress. Which brings us back to the question of how does the ATF have the power to change the definition that was established by Congress.