After the Supreme Court overturned the Trump administration’s bump stock ban last week, critics complained that the justices had interpreted the Second Amendment in a way that rules out perfectly reasonable gun regulations. That was an odd complaint, because the case did not involve the Second Amendment.
Although Murphy is a lawyer and Vance is a law professor, they completely misconstrued what this case was about. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority when it tried to ban bump stocks. Under federal law, a machine gun is a weapon that “automatically” fires more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.” A bump-fired rifle plainly does not fit that definition: It shoots just one round each time the trigger is activated and, given the manual effort necessary to fire additional rounds, does not fire “automatically.”
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: NewYorker - 🏆 90. / 67 Read more »
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »
Source: adndotcom - 🏆 293. / 63 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »