Opinionpalooza: SCOTUS Says Yes to Bump Stocks, No to Gun Safety Regulation
Jun 15, 2024
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the bump stock ban, Justice Thomas' controversial interpretation of gun regulations, and the implications for future gun safety measures. The conversation delves into the history of bump stocks, the influence of gun rights groups, and the need for continued advocacy for sensible gun regulations.
50:38
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Supreme Court overturned bump stock ban due to technicality, setting pro-gun precedent.
Concerns raised over impeding gun violence prevention efforts post SCOTUS ruling.
Advocacy for stringent gun laws at state and federal levels remains crucial for gun safety.
Deep dives
Background on the Las Vegas Massacre and Bump Stocks
The deadliest mass shooting in American history occurred on October 1, 2017, when a gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds from a bump stock-equipped rifle at a music festival crowd in Las Vegas, resulting in 60 deaths and over 800 injuries. Bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to mimic machine gun fire rates, were central to the carnage. In response, the Trump administration banned bump stocks.
Supreme Court Overturns Bump Stock Ban
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned the bump stock ban enacted under the Trump administration. By a 6-3 majority, the conservative justices determined that the ban exceeded the administration's authority in regulating bump stocks as machine guns. This decision has raised concerns about impeding efforts to prevent gun violence.
Legal and Technical Interpretations
The case hinged on interpreting the National Firearms Act of 1934 definitions related to machine guns and trigger functions. Justice Thomas's opinion focused on a technical interpretation, claiming that the function refers to the trigger, not the person's actions. This narrow reading led to the ban being overturned, diverging from Congress's original intent.
Ruling's Impact and Political Considerations
The Supreme Court's decision not only impacts bump stock regulations but also sets a precedent for interpreting gun laws in a pro-gun stance. The ruling's implications on future cases, such as ghost guns regulation and gun show loopholes, raise concerns about potential loopholes and challenges to sensible gun regulations.
Call for Action and Resilience
Despite the Supreme Court's decision, calls for action persist at both state and federal levels to address gun violence and enhance gun safety measures. Advocacy for stringent gun laws remains crucial, emphasizing the importance of state-level initiatives, while resilience and continued efforts are needed to counterbalance legal setbacks and advocate for a safer society.
Looking Ahead and Advocating for Change
With a looming Supreme Court docket filled with critical cases, including potentially game-changing decisions, concerns arise over the court's overwhelming workload and delayed rulings. Stay informed, engage in state-level advocacy, and persevere in fighting for sensible gun regulations to navigate through legal setbacks and promote a safer future.
A bump stock is an attachment that converts a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute - an intensity of gunfire matched by machine guns. The deadliest mass shooting carried out by a single shooter in US history - the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre - was enabled by a bump stock. On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era bump stock ban introduced in the wake of that tragedy, in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more injured. Writing for a perfectly partisan six to three majority, gun enthusiast and ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, decided the administration had overstepped its authority enacting the ban, and based the decision in a very technical, very weird reading of the statute. On this Opinionpalooza edition of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate’s senior writer on the courts and the law - Mark Stern, and David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Together, they discuss the careful reasoning and research behind the ban, Justice Thomas’ self-appointment as a bigger gun expert than the agency charged with regulating guns - the ATF, how the gun industry used its own “amicus flotilla” from extreme groups to undermine the agency, and how the industry will use this roadmap again. But, please don’t despair entirely, you’ll also hear from David about hope for the future of gun safety rules.
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Plus listeners have access to all our Opinionpalooza emergency episodes.
