Trump Campaign Appeals for Compliance with Supreme Court Ruling on Bump Stock Ban

The Trump campaign has asked for respect and adherence to the recent decision by the Supreme Court to invalidate the Trump administration’s 2018 bump stock ban. This decision holds significant implications for federal regulatory authority and the interpretation of firearm legislation.

The Supreme Court’s decision, issued earlier this month, was polarizing, showcasing deep divisions among the justices. The ruling overturned a policy implemented during the Trump era that labeled bump stocks—attachments allowing semi-automatic firearms to mimic automatic ones—as machine guns.

LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has nullified former President Trump’s bump stock ban, voting 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the regulation. Justice Thomas authored the opinion: https://t.co/canMOuyFLv pic.twitter.com/C8SgYkESXW

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 14, 2024

This classification effectively prohibited the possession and sale of bump stocks following the tragic 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where the perpetrator utilized bump stocks to escalate the firing rate, tragically resulting in 58 fatalities and over 800 injuries.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, along with others, voiced concerns about the retroactive criminalization of bump stock owners who lawfully purchased the attachments before the ban. He highlighted that as many as half a million individuals could face felony charges, impacting their civil liberties, including voting rights.

In our Constitutional republic, Congress enacts the laws, not the executive branch.

The Supreme Court just affirmed this in a 6 to 3 ruling invalidating Trump’s bump stock ban. https://t.co/YbRa8j6ux1

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 14, 2024

The Trump campaign stressed that even though the ban was a response to a tragic incident, it should fall within federal jurisdiction and align with the legal definition of machine guns. A campaign spokesperson emphasized that respecting the Supreme Court’s judgment is vital for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that regulatory bodies do not overstep their designated limits.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also raised similar concerns, questioning the fairness of prosecuting individuals unaware of the regulatory change. The justices grappled with the balance between legislative clarity and executive enforcement, underscoring the concept of the separation of powers.

This ruling signifies a crucial point in the ongoing discourse on gun control and regulatory power in the United States.

It also signifies the wider implications of administrative measures taken without clear legislative support. Hence, the Trump campaign’s appeal for respect for the court’s decision aligns with a commitment to legal and constitutional principles, irrespective of the contentious nature of the subjects involved.