Supreme Court To Reject Important Bump Stock Case

( On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to a prohibition on bump stocks, which are accessories for semi-automatic firearms that assist them in firing faster. Some unknowledgeable but paranoid and fearful people in power claim that bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns.

The decision of the justices not to hear the case keeps in place a decision made by a lower court that rejected the efforts of bump stock owners to be reimbursed for bump stocks that they had legitimately purchased but were obliged to give up when the administration declared that they were illegal. Lower courts have previously said that the case ought to be dismissed.

It was one of many cases the court turned down on Monday, and as is customary, the justices did not offer any commentary when they decided against hearing the case.

The court dismissed two other challenges to the prohibition in the previous month. However, proponents for gun rights achieved a significant victory in front of the Supreme Court earlier this year, which resulted in an expansion of gun-possession rights and a reduction in the capacity of states to place restrictions on the carrying of firearms in public places. The decision was 6-3.

The bump stock ban that the Trump administration enacted in 2019, which was a direct response to the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, went into force in 2019. The gunman opened fire on the crowd of 22,000 music fans using guns designed to look like assault rifles.

The vast majority of the firearms were outfitted with high-capacity magazines and bump stock devices. The shooting resulted in the deaths of a total of 58 individuals, and two more persons passed away subsequently. There were hundreds of people hurt.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives made a U-turn on bump stocks when the Trump administration decided to outlaw their use. In 2010, while President Obama was in office, the agency concluded that bump stocks did not meet the definition of a “machinegun,” and as a result, they should not be prohibited by federal law.

As part of President Trump’s administration, such decisions have been reviewed and determined to be a bad result.

The case of Roy Lynn McCutchen v. U.S., 22-25, was the one that the court dismissed on Monday.