Justices reject appeal of federal ban on firearm bump stocks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal of the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic firearms to fire rapidly like machine guns.

The justices did not comment in declining to review a lower court-ruling that upheld the ban, which took effect nearly a year ago.

This entry was posted in Gun Control. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Justices reject appeal of federal ban on firearm bump stocks

  1. Padawan says:

    Aren’t knee jerk reactions to a make believe “crisis” just wonderful? (Sarc.)

  2. Who cares? Bump fire is a technique. Learn the technique and no bump stock or trigger accessory is necessary. For those that can only do it using a bump stock, perhaps they shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. Plus it burns a lot of ammo for nothing other than the fun factor. A good rifle in the hands of a skilled rifleman is very effective.

    • Old Gray Wolf says:

      I care. Because the State has just been told it can decide on a whim to take private property that was legally purchased and owned, and make it illegal to possess, which is in effect stealing from the owner. So you sit there and think it’s ok as long as it happens to someone else. Just don’t be surprised when it happens to you and nobody gives a shit.

      For the record, I never owned a bump stock and did not understand why anyone would. But I support their right to own it, nonetheless. Nobody needs a Corvette, or a German Shepherd. Or a 5000 square foot house. Or a swimming pool. Should the State be allowed to decide whether we can have those things? Or if we can eat Doritos and drink soda or beer? Where is the line drawn at allowing the State to tell us what we can and cannot do or have? At bumpstocks? Please. As if they will stop there.

      And this is just more proof that there is no justice to be had in the courts, and we are no longer under the rule of law. Figure it out, and plan accordingly.

      • Bert says:

        Wondering when the Supremes will allow pink pussy hats to be banned?

      • Lineman says:

        There is a reason why people are called sheeple…

      • Ragnar says:

        On your side man.

        Need to ban V-8 engines. Need to ban red meat.

        They won’t stop.

        BTW My fiancée and I like Doritos, beer and NASCAR.

        So there. Yeah. Second marriage. I heard third time is a charm.

        • Old Gray Wolf says:

          You like Doritos, find some of those Tapatio ones, and grab some French onion dip with them. You will buy more…

        • Butch says:

          The commies ARE after your red meat Ragnar. The World Wildlife Federation has power over all four beef packing houses in the US. They are pressuring retailers, feeders and beef producers to make it more difficult to raise beef.

      • rightwingterrorist says:


  3. nonncom says:

    How many times when I had a deer in my sites in thick brush I wished I had a bump stock…./s for anybody who needs it….just to clarify, if we ever have to apply the Jefferson reasoning for the 2nd amendment, we’ll all wish we had a few….

  4. arc says:

    What the SCOTUS means to say is: We are waiting for Ginsburg to die off so we can completely overturn it, the judicial tides aren’t right just yet. But for now, you may yet get it overturned in a lower court… with enough grease.

    • the other Rick says:

      In a very recent decision, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in what should have been a unanimous decision; Can the fact that an illegal alien committed identity theft be used in criminal proceedings against him?

      Which judges decided in the minority are exactly who you expect. Tell us again, Chief Justice, that there are no partisan judges.

      • Bert says:

        When the time comes, who gets hung first? Politicians or judges?

        • Old Gray Wolf says:

          Both. But we will have to squeeze them in between the lawyers, media personalities and moguls, and most of the preachers.

  5. TEA says:

    At least we elected a Republican who put conservatives on the court, right?

    • the other Rick says:

      There are some firearm cases the plaintiffs are waiting to file until there is a more conservative court. Already, New York state tried to get the case they filed dismissed because they feared how the court would rule. That is NY v. NY State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. The court denied their request.

      To proceed with a case while it is still iffy is not good. After Ruth Buzzie croaks and Trump gets a 3rd nomination to the court will be the time to move forward. Just watch.

      • Bert says:

        I hope Justice Thomas eats sensibly, has a good security detail, and doesn’t use too many pillows at bedtime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *