\n
\nNext Post Coming Soon…\u25b6\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
News reports on the Supreme Court\u2019s first day of oral arguments in the case of Garland v. Cargill<\/em> with their line of questioning suggesting the court may be inclined to uphold the Trump-era ban on bump stocks by the ATF, but not yet fully signaling whether a majority of justices would eventually back such a ruling. There was abundant debate with liberal justices drawing the usual line against anything supportive of gun rights and the conservative justices asking questions that reveal they are seriously weighing the value as well as drawbacks to overriding the ATF\u2019s decision.<\/p>\nHere\u2019s a list of questions and quotes shared from the oral arguments according to ABC News and other news reports:<\/p>\n
Justice Samuel Alito:<\/strong> \u201cCan you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machine guns but we should not ban bump stocks?\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Clarence Thomas:<\/strong> \u201cThere was significant damage from machine guns, carnage, people dying, et cetera. And behind this is a notion that the bump stock does the exact same thing\u2026 So, with that background, why shouldn\u2019t we look at a broader definition?\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett:<\/strong> \u201cIntuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument\u2026 It seems like, yes, that this is functioning like a machine gun would. But, you know, looking at that definition, I think the question is, why didn\u2019t Congress pass that legislation to make this cover it more clearly?\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Brett Kavanaugh:<\/strong> ABC News reports Kavanaugh said the fact that administrations from both parties originally said the National Firearms Act did not apply to bump stocks \u201cwas reason for pause.\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Neil Gorsuch:<\/strong> \u201c(I can) certainly understand why these things should be banned.\u201d But then he added that he was wrestling with the implications of how the rule change could negatively affect hundreds of thousands of Americans who had legally purchased the devices, many of whom probably still own them despite the ATF ordering them surrendered or destroyed. \u201cIt\u2019s going to ensnare a lot of people who are not aware of the legal prohibition.\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Elena Kagan:<\/strong> \u201cWhy do these various distinctions with respect to operations matter. I read this statute to be a classification statute that Congress is directing everyone or us to identify certain kinds of weapons, and those certain kinds of weapons are being treated in a particular way. They\u2019re being prohibited\u2026 I view myself as a good textualist, but textualism is not inconsistent with common sense.\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson:<\/strong> \u201c(W)eapons with bump stocks have triggers that function in the same way (as automatic weapons) \u2026through a single, right, pull of the trigger or touch of the trigger, you achieve the same result of automatic fire.\u201d<\/p>\nAttorney Jonathan Mitchell<\/strong>, who is representing Michael Cargill in the case and speaking in response to Jackson\u2019s misunderstanding of how the bump stock works: \u201cNo\u2026The premise of Your Honor\u2019s question is not true. A single discharge of the trigger produces only one shot.\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Sonia Sotomayor:<\/strong> Questioned why anyone would need a bump stock and Mitchell replied it can help people with arthritis or other disabilities to more easily fire a rifle, Sotomayor replied, \u201cWhy would even a person with arthritis, why would Congress think they needed to shoot 400 to 800 rounds of ammunition [per minute] under any circumstance? If you don\u2019t let a person without arthritis do that, why would you permit a person with arthritis to do it?\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Elena Kagan:<\/strong> \u201cThe entire way the statute is written suggests that Congress was very aware that there could be small adjustments of a weapon that could get around what Congress meant to prohibit.\u201d<\/p>\nJustice Neil Gorsuch:<\/strong> \u201cI can certainly understand why these items should be made illegal, but we\u2019re dealing with a statute that was enacted in the 1930s\u2026 And through many administrations, the government took the position that these bump stocks are not machine guns.\u201d<\/p>\nAnd from attorney Mark W. Smith with the Four Boxes Diner, we have his take on the first day of oral arguments in the case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"US](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/bigstock-Supreme-Court-Building-317435.jpg\" "\\"US")