Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Ban on Bump Stocks, Ruling Them Legal

The Supreme Court has ruled that a federal ban on bump stocks is unlawful, allowing the controversial gun accessories to be legalized.

In a 6-3 vote, the Court struck down the ban, with Justice Clarence Thomas stating that a firearm with a bump stock does not qualify as a machine gun under federal law.

What are Bump Stocks?

Bump stocks increase the rate of fire of semi-automatic rifles, allowing them to mimic fully automatic weapons. They harness the gun's recoil to rapidly move the weapon back and forth within the stock, "bumping" the trigger against the finger without the need for multiple pulls.

The Controversy:

• Legality: Bump stocks were banned in the US after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where 58 people were killed by a shooter using rifles equipped with bump stocks. The Trump administration classified them as machine guns, making possession, sale, or manufacture illegal.
• Gun Rights Advocates: The ban was challenged by gun shop owner Michael Cargill, who argued that the government was overreaching. Hundreds of thousands of Americans owned bump stocks before the ban, and advocates feared that a government win could lead to semi-automatic weapons being targeted.
• Gun Control Groups: These groups argue that bump stocks pose a unique danger, enabling firearms to have a significantly increased rate of fire, causing enormous human carnage, as stated by the American Medical Association.

State Bans:

Despite the federal ban being struck down, 15 states have implemented their own bans on bump stocks:

1. Nevada
2. California
3. Washington
4. Hawaii
5. Minnesota
6. New York
7. New Jersey
8. Vermont
9. Rhode Island
10. Massachusetts
11. Connecticut
12. Florida
13. Delaware
14. Maryland
15. District of Columbia

A Divided Court:

The decision provoked a strong response from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented, writing that bump stocks enable semi-automatic rifles to operate like machine guns.

The ruling highlights a significant divide in the Court, with potential implications for future gun control legislation and interpretations of the Second Amendment.

_By: Mark Johnson, Staff Writer

Originally published by: YourNewsSource.com_