Gun Lobby Hoodwinks Supreme Court to Allow Sale and Use of Bump Stocks

Supreme Court Enables Gun Violence While Surgeon General Issues Report Calling for Reduction in Gun Violence

The Conservative-Reactionary Justices of the Supreme Court decided in Garland v. Cargill that the Trump Administration rule banning the sale and use of Bump Stocks, added to semi-automatic rifles to make them capable of firing 400 rounds per minute, was not authorized by the National Firearms Act, as it was not a “machinegun.” In order to reach this absurd result, six Justices precisely followed the arguments made by the Respondent Bump Stock owner, Cargill, a resident of Austin, Texas, and an amicus brief organization that makes the NRA look like sheep: the FPC Action Foundation, located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Conservative-Reactionary majority held that the Final Rule adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that banned the sale, ownership and use of Bump Stocks was invalid as inconsistent with the definition of prohibited “machineguns” in the 1934 National Firearms Act. The Final Rule was adopted by the Trump Administration in response to the outrage of citizens and politicians to the 2017 use by a shooter, standing in a hotel room in Las Vegas bordering on a music festival below, and firing multiple Bump Stock equipped rifles at the concertgoers killing 58 and injuring over 500.

The ATF properly interpreted the National Firearms Act machinegun ban to include Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifles, making them capable of firing 400 rounds per minute or 6.7 rounds per second. But our ethically challenged Conservative-Reactionary Justices held, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, that Bump Stock equipped rifles were not machineguns because they did not fit into the definition of a machinegun in the statute, 26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(b):

The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Now most readers of that section would say it perfectly describes a Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifle as it shoots more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. The Bump Stock is a part designed to convert “a weapon into a machinegun.” But that is not what the six Conservative-Reactionary Justices concluded, as Justice Thomas wrote for them:

We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” And, even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.

How did the six Conservative-Reactionary Justices reach their holding in light of the statutory language? They did it by adopting the viewpoint of the FPC Action Foundation and counsel for Cargill (“FPC”) who said that the words “single function of the trigger” does not refer to the shooter pulling the trigger, rather, according to them, it refers to the internal functioning of the trigger mechanism which includes the trigger, the disconnector and the spring loaded hammer which strikes the firing pin causing the rifle to shoot. FPC provided the Justices with diagrams of the components of the trigger, disconnector and firing mechanism which Justice Thomas reproduced in the majority opinion. What Justice Thomas and FPC neglected to include in their firing mechanism was an essential part: the shooter’s trigger finger. Without the trigger finger, nothing will happen. Only when the shooter pulls the trigger by applying force to the rear of the rifle, do the other components spring into action.

Now according to Justice Thomas and FPC, what else does the shooter need to do? The shooter needs to hold his trigger finger stationary, in the same position as when he pulled the trigger and without moving it forward. When the hammer is released striking the ammunition, the force of the explosion, projecting the bullet or projectile forward, causes Newton’s Third Law of Motion to come into play, causing the rifle to lurch backwards into the shooter’s shoulder. The Bump Stock holds the rifle and allows it to slide in the Bump Stock, and then recoil occurs and the rifle lurches forward in the Bump Stock.

As the rifle moves forward from the recoil, if the shooter has managed to keep his trigger finger on the ledge, the moving rifle brings the trigger forward, and it then collides with the shooter’s trigger finger. If the shooter managed to hold his trigger finger in the final position when it first depressed the trigger, the trigger now moving with the rifle forward will strike the shooter’s stationary trigger finger causing the hammer to strike another cartridge which was loaded “automatically” into the chamber, and that cartridge explodes projecting the second round out of the barrel and to the target.

This process will continue, if and only if, the shooter manages to keep his trigger finger in the last stationary position when he first depressed the trigger so that when the rifle leaps forward in the Bump Stock it will cause the trigger to again collide with the shooter’s trigger finger and again causing the hammer to ignite another round. If the shooter does not keep his trigger finger in that same final place on initial firing, the rifle will recoil forward, but the trigger will not collide with the shooter’s trigger finger if he has moved it off that initial final stationary position. If he moves his finger a little forward, the moving trigger will not collide with the shooter’s trigger finger, and the automatic round of shooting will stop.

But if the shooter manages to keep his trigger finger in that critical stationary position, the rifle will keep firing until it runs out of ammunition.

Now a Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifle can shoot 400 rounds per minute or 6.7 rounds per second. That means the rifle and trigger will collide with the shooter’s trigger finger 6.7 times per second. And after each collision, the shooter must maintain that same stationary finger position for the rifle to keep firing.

At the same time, the shooter has to push the rifle forward applying pressure from his left hand (assuming he is right-handed), using the front grip, while also pushing the rifle backwards with his right hand while somehow keeping his trigger finger in that same stationary position.

So the FPC interpretation of Section 5845(b) requires eliminating the most important component of the firing process: the shooter and his trigger finger. Instead, they focus on the internal workings of the trigger, hammer and disconnector, all drawn by FPC in their Amicus brief and adopted by Justice Thomas for the Court.

Not only does FPC eliminate the shooter from the firing process, but they also falsely claim that the shooter, while keeping his trigger finger stationary must also “release” the trigger to enable another firing sequence. They never describe what it means to release the trigger, and the shooter’s right hand is already busy holding the trigger finger stationary and simultaneously using his right hand to push the rifle backwards. But contrary to FPC’s assertion, the shooter does not release the trigger, rather the internal disconnector in FPC’s-Thomas’ drawing releases the trigger. And it does so automatically without participation by the shooter.

The statute’s reference to a “single function of the trigger” refers to the shooter depressing the trigger once. Then if he somehow keeps his trigger finger stationary, the back and forth motion of the rifle, with repeated igniting and firing of the new ammunition will keep the process continuing until he runs out of ammunition.

The rifle does not shoot itself, and only when the shooter first pulls the trigger does the firing sequence start. Justice Thomas bought the FPC argument hook. line and sinker and wrote the shooter and his finger out of the firing sequence. The shooter presses the trigger once, and that is the single function of the trigger to which Section 5845(b) refers. And if the shooter continues forward pressure with his left hand while holding the trigger finger stationary and applying backward pressure with his right hand, the Bump stock equipped rifle will keep firing “automatically” by the combination of the shooter’s actions and the actions of the trigger, disconnector and hammer: all four are the necessary components of the continuous firing sequence at 6.7 rounds per second.

As Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson:

Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of “machinegun” and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” § 5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.

So FPC used obfuscation and elimination of the shooter from the firing sequence in order to mislead the Justices. They claimed there were multiple functions of the trigger because the collisions with the shooter’s trigger finger kept the trigger continuing the firing sequence, but they introduced an imaginary fourth task for the shooter claiming the shooter had to re-engage the trigger after each shot and he had to reengage it 6.7 times per second. That is a falsehood not supported by their documents and exhibits.

So, FPC hoodwinked the Court by deliberately misstating components of firing and eliminating active participation of the shooter to contend that there are many multiple “functions of the trigger,” so Q.E.D., a Bump Stock equipped rifle is not a machinegun.

What kind of organization is FPC and should the Court have swallowed their obfuscation?

FPC stands for Firearms Policy Coalition. FPC Action Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that is allowed to keep its donors secret. The Firearms Policy Coalition is a Section 501(c)(4) membership organization. It has an entity called FPC Law which pursues litigation.

FPC says it has core beliefs and goals to pursue “maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual rights, and restore freedom.” It is “focused on the right to keep and bear arms.” FPC Law “is the nation’s preeminent legal action initiative focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms.” “We exist to create a world of maximal liberty and end government coercion that separates peaceable people from their life, liberty, and property.” They describe themselves as “tenacious and gritty.” Their current mission is to “Eliminate bans on the acquisition, possession, moral use, and disposition of fire arms and parts necessary to an essential scope and capability of the right to keep and bear arms (i.e., fully featured semi-automatic firearms, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds).”

Their purposes, principles and goals are:

We believe that how a government or society regulates the right to keep and bear arms is a strong and likely leading indicator of how that government or society does or will approach regulation of other natural rights and personal property.

We believe that well-armed people make tyranny at scale significantly more costly.

We believe that it is immoral to unjustly use force to take the life, liberty, or property of others.

Now remember that the Trump Administration promulgated the Final ATF Rule banning Bump Stocks after the shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada brought multiple Bump Stock equipped rifles to his Las Vegas hotel room where he fired his “machineguns” at innocent concert goers below killing 58 and wounding over 500 in the deadliest mass shooting in the United States. But FPC says it is “immoral to unjustly use force to take the life, liberty or property of others.” So they work to eliminate the Bump Stock ban by falsely describing it as not a machinegun. In actuality, by depressing the trigger once and maintaining a stationary trigger finger, the Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifle can fire up to 400 rounds per minute or one every 6.7 seconds.

Now think about the perspective of the shooter. If he can manage to keep his trigger finger stationary as the trigger collides with his trigger finger 6.7 times per second, he will succeed in achieving a firing rate of 400 rounds per minute and this happens “automatically” as long as he manages to keep his trigger finger stationary: a difficult task. AND THAT IS JUST WHAT THE LAS VEGAS SHOOTER DID WITH HIS INACCURATE MACHINEGUN FIRING ON UNARMED CONCERT GOERS.

So FPC has managed to hoodwink the six Conservative-Reactionary Justices to hold that the Bump Stock equipped rifle is not a machinegun and can now be sold and used throughout the United States, potentially enabling more mass shooters to commit murder.

Now here is what the FPC said about its victory in hoodwinking the Supreme Court majority referencing their drawings adopted by Justice Thomas:

We’ve been having fun with the anti-rights clowns having a meltdown over Justice Thomas and the Supreme Court citing illustrations of an AR-15 trigger group in the massive Cargill bumpstock ban decision last week. Apparently, the corporate press and their tyrant handlers hate when courts use factual information to show how things work when they decide something important that affects millions of people.

Shortly after the Bump Stock decision, the Supreme Court shifted in deciding United States v. Rahimi, where all the Justices, except for dissenting Justice Thomas, held that the law allowing disarming of people subject to domestic violence restraining orders , was constitutional. CJ Roberts opinion for the Court began:

A federal statute prohibits an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm if that order includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8). Respondent Zackey Rahimi is subject to such an order. The question is whether this provision may be enforced against him consistent with the Second Amendment.

Here are the facts of the case as written by CJ Roberts:

In December 2019, Rahimi met his girlfriend, C. M., for lunch in a parking lot. C. M. is also the mother of Rahimi’s young child, A. R. During the meal, Rahimi and C. M. began arguing, and Rahimi became enraged. Brief for United States. C. M. attempted to leave, but Rahimi grabbed her by the wrist, dragged her back to his car, and shoved her in, causing her to strike her head against the dashboard. When he realized that a bystander was watching the alter cation, Rahimi paused to retrieve a gun from under the passenger seat. C. M. took advantage of the opportunity to es cape. Rahimi fired as she fled, although it is unclear whether he was aiming at C. M. or the witness. Rahimi later called C. M. and warned that he would shoot her if she reported the incident. Ibid. Undeterred by this threat, C. M. went to court to seek a restraining order. In the affidavit accompanying her application, C. M. recounted the parking lot incident as well as other assaults. She also detailed how Rahimi’s conduct had endangered A. R. Although Rahimi had an opportunity to contest C. M.’s testimony, he did not do so. On February 5, 2020, a state court in Tarrant County, Texas, issued a re straining order against him. The order, entered with the consent of both parties, included a finding that Rahimi had committed “family violence.” App. 2. It also found that this violence was “likely to occur again” and that Rahimi posed “a credible threat” to the “physical safety” of C. M. or A. R. Id., at 2–3. Based on these findings, the order prohibited Rahimi from threatening C. M. or her family for two years or contacting C. M. during that period except to discuss A. R. Id., at 3–7. It also suspended Rahimi’s gun license for two years. Id., at 5–6. If Rahimi was imprisoned or confined when the order was set to expire, the order would instead terminate either one or two years after his release date, depending on the length of his imprisonment. Id., at 6–7. In May, however, Rahimi violated the order by approaching C. M.’s home at night. He also began contacting her through several social media accounts. In November, Rahimi threatened a different woman with a gun, resulting in a charge for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And while Rahimi was under arrest for that assault, the Texas police identified him as the suspect in a spate of at least five additional shootings. The first, which occurred in December 2020, arose from Rahimi’s dealing in illegal drugs. After one of his customers “started talking trash,” Rahimi drove to the man’s home and shot into it. Brief for United States. While driving the next day, Rahimi collided with another car, exited his vehicle, and proceeded to shoot at the other car. Three days later, he fired his gun in the air while driving through a residential neighborhood. A few weeks after that, Rahimi was speeding on a highway near Arlington, Texas, when a truck flashed its lights at him. Rahimi hit the brakes and cut across traffic to chase the truck. Once off the highway, he fired several times toward the truck and a nearby car before fleeing. Two weeks after that, Rahimi and a friend were dining at a roadside burger restaurant. When the restaurant declined his friend’s credit card, Rahimi pulled a gun and shot into the air. The police obtained a warrant to search Rahimi’s residence. There they discovered a pistol, a rifle, ammunition and a copy of the restraining order.

As anyone would say, Rahimi was a bad guy and a dangerous man. The Court held that forbidding Rahimi from possessing firearms as long as the restraining order was in effect was constitutional and did not violate the Second Amendment.

Here is what the FPC said about the decision in Rahimi:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 21, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement regarding the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi:

As we explained in our amicus brief, the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose gun control on peaceable individuals at all, let alone the statute at issue in this case. While we disagree with the Court’s holding and dispute federal authority to enforce this regulation, we are encouraged that the Court confirmed the textual and historical analysis required under its Heller and Bruen decisions. We will continue to eliminate disarmament schemes and restore the right to keep and bear arms through our high-impact FPC Law strategic litigation program and other efforts.

But this is the gun rights advocacy group that hoodwinked the Court in the Bump Stock case which is also the group to claim as one of its principles that:

We believe that it is immoral to unjustly use force to take the life, liberty, or property of others.

Should the Court be adopting the false factual claims and legal argument of the FPC Action Foundation and its FPC Law organization?

Soon after the FPC hoodwinked the Supreme Court, the Surgeon General of the United States released a Public Advisory Report entitled “Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America.” The Subhead Page recites the nature and extent of firearm violence:

Firearm violence in America is a public health crisis.

Since 2020, firearm‑related injury has been the leading cause of death for U.S. children and adolescents (ages 1–19), surpassing motor vehicle crashes, cancer, and drug overdose and poisoning (Figure 1).

In 2022, 48,204 total people died from firearm‑related injuries, including suicides, homicides, and unintentional deaths.2 This is over 8,000 more lives lost than in 2019 and over 16,000 more lives lost than in 2010.

The Surgeon General’s Public Advisory paints a picture of the overall extent of firearm violence and its impact on children, loved ones and communities:

A recent nationally representative survey (n=1,271) found that the majority of U.S. adults or their family members (54%) have experienced a firearm-related incident. Among all respondents, 21% have personally been threatened with a firearm, 19% have a family member who was killed by a firearm (including by suicide), 17% have witnessed someone being shot, 4% have shot a firearm in self-defense, and 4% have been injured by a firearm (Figure 2). Nearly 6 in 10 U.S. adults say that they worry “sometimes,” “almost every day,” or “every day,” about a loved one being a victim of firearm violence. Such high levels of exposure to firearm violence for both children and adults give rise to a cycle of trauma and fear within our communities, contributing to the nation’s mental health crisis. …

The rate of firearm‑related deaths in our nation has been rising and reached a near three‑decade high in 2021. This crisis is being driven, in particular, by increases in firearm‑related homicides over the last decade and firearm‑related suicides over the last two decades. Across all firearm‑related deaths in 2022, more than half (56.1%) were from suicide, 40.8% were from homicide, and the remaining were from legal intervention, unintentional injuries, and injuries of unknown intent.

The Surgeon General turned attention to mass shootings where death resulted:

While mass shooting deaths represent only about 1% of all firearm‑related deaths in the U.S., the number of mass shooting incidents is increasing. According to data published by Gun Violence Archive, the U.S. experienced more than 600 mass shooting incidents each year between 2020 and 2023, compared to an average of less than 400 annual mass shooting incidents between 2015 and 2018. An analysis of the National Violent Death Reporting System found that compared to single homicides (1 victim) and multiple homicides (2‑3 victims), mass homicides (4 or more victims, besides the perpetrator) had the highest proportion of female victims (52%), the highest proportion of White victims (56%), and the highest proportion of child victims (more than a quarter were younger than 18 years old).

The Surgeon General then turned attention to the effect of mass shootings on the community and the nation:

Despite accounting for a relatively small number of firearm deaths, mass shooting incidents cause outsized collective trauma on society and have a strong negative effect on the public’s perception of safety (see “Collective Toll” section on page 14). More than three‑quarters of adults (79%) in the U.S. report experiencing stress from the possibility of a mass shooting, and one in three adults (33%) say fear prevents them from going to certain places or events. [Especially open-air concerts]

The Surgeon General then describes the effect of mass shooting killings on the mental health of children, families, communities, health workers and law enforcement:

There is increasing evidence that exposure to firearm violence can contribute to elevated stress levels and mental health challenges and threaten the sense of well‑being for entire communities. One study examining emergency department admissions between 2014 and 2018 found that children and adolescents in west and southwest Philadelphia, who lived within two to three blocks of where a shooting occurred, had nearly 50% increased odds of using an emergency room for mental health reasons during the subsequent 30 days after the shooting than other children and adolescents. The odds were highest among youth who were exposed to multiple shootings and among those who lived closest to a shooting’s location.

Health workers who regularly treat firearm‑related injuries and are exposed to the consequences of firearm violence may experience secondary traumatic stress. The same can be seen among community workers and law enforcement officers who directly interface with victims and survivors of firearm violence. For example, in a study population of Chicago community violence interventionists (trained civilians working to intervene in and de‑escalate street and firearm violence), 94% of workers reported at least one secondary traumatic stress indicator in the prior seven days (e.g., feeling emotionally numb, having trouble concentrating or sleeping, reliving the trauma experienced by clients).

The Surgeon General then recommended the following public policy actions to deal with rising gun violence especially those perpetrated as mass killings:

Ban assault weapons and large‑capacity magazines for civilian use. Assault weapons may encompass automatic weapons and some semiautomatic weapons that may include military‑style features that make the firearm more lethal, such as detachable large‑capacity magazines. A large‑capacity magazine (also known as a high‑capacity magazine) is commonly defined as a device that has the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Mass shootings that involve a firearm with a large‑capacity magazine result in significantly more injuries and deaths than shootings that do not involve such magazines.

Create safer conditions in public places related to firearm use and carry, including through policies that govern who can carry a loaded firearm in public spaces, concealed or open, and through rules around using deadly force with a firearm in public situations where the individual(s) could have safely retreated without firing a weapon.

In sum, the Surgeon General is working to reduce gun violence, particularly from mass shootings in public places, while the Conservative-Reactionary Justices of the Supreme Court have just acted to open the flood gates for sale, ownership, possession, and use of Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifles capable of shooting 400 rounds per minute or 6.7 rounds per second as the trigger keeps colliding with the trigger finger of the shooter as long as the shooter somehow keeps his trigger finger stationary, despite the quickly repeated collisions with his trigger finger 6.7 times per second. The shooter would have a difficult time keeping the Bump Stock rifle aimed at a target. As a result it is necessarily very inaccurate. And what is such a highly inaccurate weapon used for: mass killings of innocent people at music concerts or other public gatherings as the shooter did at the 2017 Bump Stock firing mass shooting killing 58 and wounding over 500.

The ATF saw the need to make such weapons illegal to prevent more mass shootings with their terrible effects and consequences of murdered and injured innocent people and the increased stress and fear of the public in general. But the Conservative-Reactionary Justices claim to be smarter than the ATF even though the Justices were hoodwinked by the radical gun rights people in FPC who do not even like or accept the Rahimi decision, disarming a man repeatedly threatening many with his firearms.

These Justices think someone appointed them as Neitzsche’s Uber Mensch from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” but these Justices may be smart but they are not wise. They were misled by a rabid pro-gun group like FPC to overturn the wise ATF decision to ban Bump Stock equipped semi-automatic rifles as machineguns which were banned by the Trump Administration’s ATF after the horrific use of these inaccurate and deadly weapons in Las Vegas, the same place where FPC is headquartered and operates.

The Supreme Court is not competent in all technical matters handled by experts in administrative agencies to replace deference to administrative agencies with its own amateur investigations where it can be easily lead astray by lawyers filing Amicus Briefs, and such lawyers are not friends of the Court.