Many continue to believe that President Donald Trump is a huge supporter of the Second Amendment despite his flagrant disregard for it, along with virtually all of the Bill of Rights.  However, it isn’t just those things.  Remember when Trump played his part in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE; ATF) and their lawless ban of bump stocks, making law-abiding citizens criminals overnight in clear violation of ex post facto laws?  Remember, ATF is an unconstitutional agency and has zero legislative authority (See here, here and here)

On Friday, the US supreme Court struck down the Trump/ATF bump stock ban, which is a win for the Second Amendment, Article I and II of the Constitution.

AP reports:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a rapid-fire gun accessory that was used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it changed course from previous administrations after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault rifles equipped with bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds in the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens were killed in 2017.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas said a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not an illegal machine gun because it doesn’t make the weapon fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger.

“A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing, and the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,” he wrote in an opinion that contained multiple drawings of guns’ firing mechanisms.

He was joined by his fellow conservatives. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a short separate opinion to stress that Congress can change the law to equate bump stocks with machine guns.

Changing the definition of a bump stock through regulation rather than legislation took pressure off Republicans in Congress to act or justify inaction in the face of the Las Vegas massacre during Trump’s presidency.

In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to the Las Vegas gunman. “In murdering so many people so quickly, he did not rely on a quick trigger finger. Instead, he relied on bump stocks,” she said, reading a summary of her dissent aloud in the courtroom. Sotomayor said that it’s “deeply regrettable” Congress has to act but that she hopes it does.

Former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign team said it respects the court’s decision in a statement that quickly pivoted to politics, touting his endorsement by the National Rifle Association. President Joe Biden did not have an immediate comment.

The ruling came after a Texas gun shop owner challenged the ban, arguing the Justice Department wrongly classified the accessories as illegal machine guns.

The Biden administration said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives made the right choice for the gun accessories, which can allow weapons to fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute. The

It marked the latest gun case to come before the high court. A conservative supermajority handed down a landmark decision expanding gun rights in 2022 and is weighing another gun case challenging a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders.

The arguments in the bump stock case, though, were more about whether the ATF had overstepped its authority than the Second Amendment.

While some claim bump stocks aided in the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, the reality was that bump stocks were on weapons with bipods.  You can’t use a bump stock on a rifle if you are also using its bipod.  So, it was utter nonsense in the first place.

Additionally, I would recommend that people read Dr. Leonard Horowitz‘s excellent book on the Las Vegas shooting, Las Vegas Deep State Massacre, and the myriad of problems in the official narrative, as well as in the timeline and the patsy, Stephen Paddock.

The downside in the ruling is that the supreme Court continues to tout the lawless claim that Congress somehow or another, despite the clear words of the Second Amendment and the lack of any authority to do so in Article I of the Constitution, has authority to restrict “machineguns.”  The alleged supporters of the Second Amendment are going to have to find their voice and speak up to end all infringements on the rights of the People to keep and bear arms (of any kind)…. and that includes machineguns.

Keep in mind that the Biden administration attacks the Second Amendment feverishly, as well.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.