US Supreme Court Building
Bigstock

News reports on the Supreme Court’s first day of oral arguments in the case of Garland v. Cargill 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’s decision.

Here’s a list of questions and quotes shared from the oral arguments according to ABC News and other news reports:

Justice Samuel Alito: “Can you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machine guns but we should not ban bump stocks?”

Justice Clarence Thomas: “There 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… So, with that background, why shouldn’t we look at a broader definition?”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett: “Intuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument… 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’t Congress pass that legislation to make this cover it more clearly?”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: ABC News reports Kavanaugh said the fact that administrations from both parties originally said the National Firearms Act did not apply to bump stocks “was reason for pause.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch: “(I can) certainly understand why these things should be banned.” 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. “It’s going to ensnare a lot of people who are not aware of the legal prohibition.”

Justice Elena Kagan: “Why 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’re being prohibited… I view myself as a good textualist, but textualism is not inconsistent with common sense.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: “(W)eapons with bump stocks have triggers that function in the same way (as automatic weapons) …through a single, right, pull of the trigger or touch of the trigger, you achieve the same result of automatic fire.”

Attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who is representing Michael Cargill in the case and speaking in response to Jackson’s misunderstanding of how the bump stock works: “No…The premise of Your Honor’s question is not true. A single discharge of the trigger produces only one shot.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: 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, “Why 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’t let a person without arthritis do that, why would you permit a person with arthritis to do it?”

Justice Elena Kagan: “The 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.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch: “I can certainly understand why these items should be made illegal, but we’re dealing with a statute that was enacted in the 1930s… And through many administrations, the government took the position that these bump stocks are not machine guns.”

And from attorney Mark W. Smith with the Four Boxes Diner, we have his take on the first day of oral arguments in the case.

 

The justices are expected to enter a final ruling in the case by the end of June.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

55 COMMENTS

  1. “Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Questioned why anyone would need a bump stock …”

    Why would anyone need a computer word processing program and a laserjet printer to disseminate free-speech flyers when they can just write something on a piece of paper with a pen over and over?

    This case isn’t about “needs”. And this case isn’t about how fast someone can launch high-speed lead projectiles into a crowd*. This case is about an administrative agency reading something which does not exist into an existing law — AND — this case is about infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

    * Almost anyone can load a 12 gauge shotgun (which has a seven-shell tube magazine) with eight shells (seven in the magazine plus one in the chamber) of #00 buckshot and “slam fire” that shotgun amazingly fast into a crowd. The result would be launching 72 lead pellets in about 7 seconds for an aggregate projectile rate of 10 projectiles per second–which is potentially even faster than someone can launch projectiles with a bumpstock. We should not be banning bumpstocks unless we are willing to ban pump-action shotguns.

    • Lookup up “dumb as a bag of prog rocks” – you’ll find Sotomayor’ photo. She well illustrates the Peter Principle in action.

    • The AFT needs to be held to the same standards as the FDA and the EPA and be slapped down for the same exact reason. They don’t make or interpret law, it’s their job to enforce existing law, not executive dictates. Congress makes the laws. Chevron deference is eating a turd sandwich and the same principal applies here.

      Uncommon, the useful idiots in Trenton tried going after buckshot and luckily came to their senses some how. Probably because logically they’d have to ban all shot shells

    • A nation can survive its fools, and even its ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 60 BCE

  4. What we need is for each judge to go to the range and shoot a machine gun and a semi with a bump stock.

  5. “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. ”

    Congress is directing everyone or us… or? Which is it, Congress OR Everyone OR SCOTUS?

    “(W)eapons with bump stocks have triggers that function in the same way (as automatic weapons) …through a single, right, pull of the trigger or touch of the trigger, you achieve the same result of automatic fire.”

    No stupid. You do not “achieve the same result of automatic fire” because…

    the result of ‘automatic fire’ is repeated firing done automatically that was initiated by a single manual press of the trigger, holding it down, and that results in numerous rounds being fired until the trigger is released.

    For the bump stock case, it takes a single manual press of the trigger to fire a single round, the trigger then needs to be released (so it can reset) to repeat the cycle again manually to fire another single round. That is not an ‘automatic’ result but rather a manual result.

    “The 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.”

    The bump stock is not a modification to the weapon firing method, that’s what ‘modification’ was referring to – a modification to the weapon firing method its self, the triggering mechanism to fire. The bump stock doesn’t touch that at all.

    • Justice Clarence Thomas: “There 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… So, with that background, why shouldn’t we look at a broader definition?”

      Oh, the sweet irony.

      • giddyminor49iq…The carnage aspect applies first and foremost to everyday knives, bats, bricks, fists, feet, vehicles, etc.
        The citizen’s 2A Constitutional Right and ability to defend themselves must be protected at all costs. To protect the 2A the court must be savy enough not fall into traps purposely intended to connect the 2A with Criminal Misuse.

      • “There was significant damage from machine guns, carnage, people dying, et cetera. ”

        There was AND IS significant damage from car accidents and alcohol and tobacco and knives and clubs and rape and hands/feet and Shannon Watts and Everytown and Brady and Left-wing violence and democrat ‘progressive’ politicians and criminals and an insecure border and illegal drugs, carnage, people dying, et cetera.

        Oh the irony

        • It ain’t me ‘going with that’, that was a direct quote in the courtroom from Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the best Supreme Court justices money can buy!

        • For one that claims some level of knowledge you lack a lot of pattern recognition so yeah good luck going with that as well as your other tropes I am sure they will age well.

      • Yet hands and feet kill more people than all rifles combined. Where is your outrage at hands and feet?

  6. Need? Nobody needs anything but food, shelter and medical care.

    If this is a sign of how well educated our elites are we are truly fucked.

  7. From what I gather the pinnacle of the Second Amendment does not exceed a lowly bump stock contraption. What happens when Gun Control is the de facto prosecutor and never the justifiably prosecuted.

  8. Lets not forget the big ‘elephant in the room’ question SCOTUS really needs to address. That being, has the ATF acted unconstitutionally and in violation of the APA by in effect creating defacto law by implementing their own self-serving interpretation and definitions?

    I think it’s pretty obvious they have acted unconstitutionally and in violation of the APA. But, gotta wait to see what SCOTUS says on that.

    • I believe that you hit the nail on the head.
      The most important point in this discussion isn’t the bump stock by itself, but rather the behaviour of ATF in the matter
      1- ATF consider itself vested in deciding about the true meaning of the law, and this is a matter for the courts, if the need arise.
      2 – ATF reversed a consolidated reading of the law that itself had made public in the first place.

      IMHO (but I am typing from Italy, and therefore I may consider myself the armchair-est of the armchair commentators) the SCOTUS should decide that the new definition by the ATF is not void because of 2A, but rather because to define what is a machine gun ISA business for the Congress

      Just my 0.2 euro

  9. Nuclear weapons are in the hands of private corporations, private corporations are citizens. Arms are anything that can be used for defense. I have a right to nuclear weapons….

    • “private corporations are citizens“

      No, they aren’t.

      A corporation never stands the risks of citizenship, can’t be imprisoned for crimes and suffer hard time.

      No corporation will ever stand the risk of being drafted, sent to Southeast Asia, endure war and trauma, and leave their legs in a rice paddy.

      America’s founding fathers would be disgusted with any American claiming ‘corporations are people’ and allowing a business organization to interfere in our elections is the complete abandonment of the basic principles of America.

      The constitution was not written to guarantee a profit to business endeavors, but rather to ensure equal rights and opportunities for every person in America.

  10. “Justices Debate, Appear Split on Bump Stock’s Legality After First Day of Oral Arguments”

    Why does the author keep using the term (three separate times), “first day of oral arguments?” This clearly implies that he expects additional arguments on another day.

    SCOTUS oral arguments never go more than one day, and in fact the majority of them are only one HOUR! We always complain when authors write about guns in ignorance, shouldn’t our authors have to know something about the Supreme Court when they write about that?

    • Nunn is definitely on point, and it has stood for over 150 years.

      Of course, the justices of the Georgia Supreme Court fully intended to deny second amendment rights to every African-American within their jurisdiction, and more if they could.

      Some folks would think that kind of taints the decision, viewing it as casually racist.

      • “Some folks would think that kind of taints the decision, viewing it as casually racist.”

        Hogwash. The ruling was 1846. In Georgia. Yes, there were enslaved persons of color at that time. The ruling is silent regarding those specific issues. The issues that you would claim “taint” the ruling were common throughout the south, and were later resolved, leaving that ruling to apply to ALL.

        Taking your illogic to it’s inevitable conclusion, EVERY law written in the south prior to 1865 would be “tainted.” Yes, a lot of them were horrible. But not all of them.

        Take that garbage somewhere else, we aren’t buying here.

        • “The ruling is silent regarding those specific issues“

          Yes, that’s why I called it ‘casually racist’, the justices were comfortable in their racial bigotry.

          “EVERY law written in the south prior to 1865 would be “tainted.” Yes, a lot of them were horrible“

          Yes, a lot of them were indeed horrible.

          For almost 250 years, judges in America just ignored the inequities of slavery, and after the constitution was ratified, they continued to ignore the black letter law of the constitution’s declaration that ‘All men are created equal… ‘.

          So yes, I think all decisions rendered before the 13th amendment was ratified should be considered carefully in the light of subsequent legislation.

          “we aren’t buying here“

          No need to fret, my wisdom comes free of charge! Truth be told, it’s probably worth every penny.

        • “free of charge! Truth be told, it’s probably worth every penny.”

          You GREATLY overestimate the value of your drivel.

        • MajorMistake,

          Nice to see the consistency of your knowledge base – you are equally ignorant of the law as you are of firearms. The judicial and legislative history of the 13th is QUITE clear that (i) following adoption and ratification, the 13th made all enslaved persons free citizens, and that ALL civil rights and federal laws that either referred to the former slaves differently, or provided for disparate treatment, were to be interpreted consistently with the 13th (and, subsequently, effectuated further by the 14th, 15th, and 24th). Mirabile dictu, SCOTUS and Congress concurred in the concept that it wasn’t NECESSARY to rewrite all the laws, because to the extent they were inconsistent, they were superseded. Strange, that. Now, if you’re hung up on the fact that there are probably laws out there that refer to “persons” or “citizens” that, at the time they were passed, those references did not include slaves, and you want pretty language to make yourself feel better, and let you virtue signal and impress your fellow Leftist/fascists, knock yourself out, but the current understanding of the results of the 13th has been pretty consistently interpreted by both SCOTUS and Congress since the 13th. But I guess pretty language is really important to people who can’t define terms like “woman” or “man”, and dither about idiot topics like “toxic masculinity” (when do I get to start complaining about “toxic femininity”, MajorMistake, ’cause I’ve got some MAJOR issues with, for example, Taylor Lorenz, and Cathryn McKinnon) and “white privilege”.

          Y’all are walking examples of why the DSM was originally created. Have you enjoyed all the recent studies showing the ABSURDLY higher incidence of neuroses and other diagnosable mental conditions among Leftists??? I certainly have. ‘Course, I’ve been saying y’all are crazy as sh*thouse rats for years. And you continue to demonstrate it on this very board, daily.

  12. Scrotus is not on the side of Freedom. Civil conflict is inevitable. The fourth box seems to be our last hope

    • Just to mention….the main reason a new state law that will require major fast-food places to pay their workers $20 an hour exists in California is because of what Newsom is going to do with some of the illegal i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ immigrants. His next step is to f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ ‘convince’ fast-food places in the state to hire only the illegal i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ immigrants and replace their work force with the illegal i̶n̶v̶a̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ immigrants.

  19. 40 ounce, do you really need to post six different YouTube videos, some of them not even tangentially related to guns?

    “Republicans want Newsom to be investigated – Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ties to a billionaire… “

    Good Lord, he knows a billionaire?

    So much for “context matters!”

    • “40 ounce, do you really need to post six different YouTube videos, some of them not even tangentially related to guns?”

      Why yes, yes I do.

      “So much for ‘context matters!'”

      2A and gun stuff, and anti-gun governors corruption, and gov shut down that affects ATF (thus guns) and a little briefing on what gov-shut-down entails, is in context with ‘The Truth About Guns’, a site where such gun and anti-gun stuff is presented and discussed all the time. All of those videos were related or tangentially related to ‘guns’.

      You really should learn what context means Miner49er, and now it seems you need to learn what “tangentially” means too.

  20. So much of the discussion was about what a bump stock does WRT a semiautomatic rifle. Why has not the petitioners simply put a bump stock on the table and ask the very simple question – Is this piece of plastic a machine gun? Because that is what the ATF is saying. Or am I missing something?

  21. What’s next? If you ban bump stocks will shoelaces, a strap or belt be next? If you fasten any of the three to the back of a gun stock and fasten the other end to the belt loop on your pants then push the gun stock forward away from your body causing tension in the shoelace, strap or belt the same rapid fire result can be easily achieved when you pull the trigger.

  22. ATF ruled in 1981 that Drop In Auto Sears (DIAS) were machine guns. The ruling explicitly states they violate The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

    Here’s the ruling.

    27 CFR 179.11: MEANING OF TERMS
    The AR15 auto sear is a machinegun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
    ATF Rul. 81-4
    [Status of ruling: Active]
    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has examined an auto sear known by various
    trade names including “AR15 Auto Sear,” “Drop In Auto Sear,” and “Auto Sear II,” which
    consists of a sear mounting body, sear, return spring, and pivot pin. The Bureau finds that the
    single addition of this auto sear to certain AR15 type semiautomatic rifles, manufactured with
    M16 internal components already installed, will convert such rifles into machineguns.
    The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines “machinegun” to include any
    combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot
    automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
    HELD: The auto sear known by various trade names including “AR15 Auto Sear,” “Drop
    In Auto Sear,” and “Auto Sear II,” is a combination of parts designed and intended for use in
    converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
    single function of the trigger. Consequently, the auto sear is a machinegun as defined by 26
    U.S.C. 5845(b).
    With respect to the machinegun classification of the auto sear under the National Firearms Act,
    pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to auto sears manufactured before
    November 1, 1981. Accordingly, auto sears manufactured on or after November 1, 1981, will be
    subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act and 27 C.F.R. Part 179

    This ATF ruling clearly supports that a bump stock is not a machine gun. Can’t use the definition of a machine gun by National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) to make something illegal (DIAS) and then ignore it to say something (bump stock) also is illegal. Hopefully some pro-gun lawyer brings this to the attention of SCOTUS!

  23. This “law” was dictated by a bureaucrat (regardless of Trumps big mouth) therefore it is not a legal law but a dictate of an agency. a rule that cannot make a violator a criminal.

  24. The “gun community” has never, every supported machine gun ownership, in the general population.

    The “gun community” likes the NFA. They are made up of very troubled people. Who have a very difficult time being honest with themselves.

    American ingenuity. The american desire to improve. The American desire to invent. That is something that is particular to our american society. Because we encourage it.
    Most societies don’t.

    Here on TTAG the folks with 6 or 7 gun safes and grand daddy’s old shotgun. They crapped all over the bumpstock.

    “That’s just a range toy.”

    The inability or the refusal of this “gun community” to face the growing technology advancements. In firearms’ development and manufacture, their refusal is breathtaking.

    The founder of High Point firearms. Said his mission statement was to make guns Affordable for everyone. Because as he put it, “the second amendment was for poor people too.”

    And Machine Guns are for poor people as well.

    The problem is, a machine gun or any gun, in the hands of an undisciplined person. Is a danger to the public.

    And let’s be honest. The vast majority of undisciplined people, with machine guns, are black teenagers.

    And the white libertarians. The white liberals. The white leftists. The white atheists. The white h 0 m 0 se xu@ ls. The white feminists.
    All disagree with the christians. When the christians said a father is necessary in the home.

    They have openly rejected everything that will have made our society much safer. They reject a moral and disciplined father. Who would teach his children about gun safety and respect for others.

    The only the things they really only care about, are le ga l butt sex and drugs.

    It would not surprise me if we lost the second amendment. Because a large portion of our society, simply refuses to believe in self control. They don’t believe in self disciplined. And they don’t believe in the supremacy of the family, in making sure we have self disciplined children.

    Prepare for a national divorce.

    Because Obama and Biden made sure that civilian police departments, got select fire weapons, by the thousands for “free.”
    And those police departments they still have those machine guns.

  25. I love science fiction. I’m big fan of the original Star Trek from 1966. Amazing the
    number of things that have come true, from 100 year old science fiction stories.

    And now here it is. The “Star Trek replicator” has been perfected. A “homemade” mini gun for every American family.

    Is electricity really necessary???

    Watch the video before its taken down. And the government raids the homes of the creators.

    Nopel . video 3 min long
    https://youtu.be/uC36sE5Yxfg?si=PGWI5PHr4RkSpaWv

    • btw
      In an episode of the TV show “Star Trek Deep Space 9”. A group of scientists who invented a super weapon, are murdered by their own government.

      In order to keep that information about how to make that weapon. They’re murdered to keep it from getting out into the general population.

Comments are closed.