U.S. Supreme Court rejects gun rights case over rapid-fire bump stocks

June Medical Services vs. Russo now before the U.S. Supreme Court centers around a Louisiana law mandating that abortion service providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. File 

The plaintiffs, which include Damien Guedes and the Firearms Policy Foundation, had petitioned the court after a lower court's decision to uphold Trump's ban on bump stock devices.

Once connected to a rifle rather than their standard inventory, or finish part, bump stocks enabled rounds to be fired in rapid succession, nearly as quickly as an automatic weapon. Some guns can fire over 400 rounds per minute with a bump stock.

Feds take first steps toward regulating bump-fire stocks after Stephen Paddock killed 58 people attending a concert in Las Vegas.

In 2019, with President Donald Trump's two nominees sitting on the high court, several states advanced a slew of abortion restrictions to stake their claims before what seemed like an imminent battle over abortion rights.

The Trump administration's move was an about-face for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.


The revised regulation was met with resistance from gun rights advocates, including the groups and gun owners who filed suit in Washington, D.C., and whose appeal the court turned away Monday.

The Trump administration is seeking a sweeping ruling that it could potentially use to deport millions of people, even those arrested far from the border and who have been in the country for years, said Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing the man at the Supreme Court.

"Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion isn't about the merits of the bump stocks rule, but rather whether the lower court applied the correct standard of review in considering those merits".

Although the court as a whole made no comment, Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the reasoning of the appeals court that backed the ban, and he suggested the Supreme Court might intervene on the subject at a later point.

"The government has urged throughout this litigation that the agency's application of the statutory definition of machine gun to the bump stocks at issue is the best interpretation of the statute - wholly apart from any question of deference", Solicitor General Noel Francisco wrote in a filing with the Supreme Court urging the justices not to hear the dispute.

Related:

Comments

Latest news

Sturridge 'devastated' by ban until June, quits Trabzonspor
England striker Daniel Sturridge has released a statement following his ban from football for a breach of betting regulations.

United Kingdom trade talks kick off amid threats and deadlines
Britain acknowledges it won't be able to strike a deal without opening Britain's market to American agricultural products. The government acknowledged public concerns about USA meat, particularly chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef.

Covid-19: Wash your hands. No really. Wash your hands
Ellen DeGeneres is doing her part to prevent the spread of the coronavirus by teaching her audience how to wash their hands. But given the frequency of washing hands, you might get bored and exhausted of only singing Happy Birthday .

Dow soars almost 1,300 points, best one-day point gain in history
USA shares were set for further gains after a huge rally on Monday, with Dow futures adding 1.1% to 26,761.00. The biotechnology company has been testing one of its drugs as a potential treatment for the coronavirus.

Goldman Sachs expects 75bps Fed rate-cut by June 2020
The comments were the latest sign the central bank would maintain a wait-and-see approach to the outbreak . "We will use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy ", Powell said.

Other news