Mediaboss Marketing

Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal rule banning bump stocks, ruling that a bump stock does not transform a firearm into an automatic weapon.

Project 21 Ambassador Craig DeLuz, a Second Amendment expert, discussed this case last week with NTD News Steve Lance, highlighting the implications that the decision would have both for the Second Amendment and separation of powers.

Craig DeLuz

On Capitol Report, Craig told Steve:

I think its an interesting decision for this reason: In this case, you have an administration thats decided that they are going to take something thats defined in statute and theyre going to try to redefine it in order to ban a firearm or a firearm part that they dont like.

Now when it comes to, for example, bump stocks: Not a lot of people own bump stocks. Not a lot of people are interested in owning bump stocks. So a lot of people decided, well were not even gonna really pay attention to that.

The problem with that is: What happens when you have an administration come along who starts to then say, well Im gonna redefine firearms or firearm parts that people do like? Right? Weve already allowed them to violate the separation of powers by trying to legislate from the executive branch. Believe it or not, the ATF does not get to make the law. They get to enforce the law.

I think thats probably the biggest part of what were going to be seeing in this decision. Its not just about the Second Amendment. Its a direct attack on the Second Amendment, but its really also about protecting the rest of the Constitution and separation of powers. I believe that this Supreme Court in particular recognizes the overreach that many in the executive branch at all levels of government sadly have undertaken.

The implication is going to be, number one, whether or not executive offices or executive departments have the ability to basically legislate from their departments. Part of it is going to be that.

The other part is going to be whether or not it is going to further the folks who dont support the Second Amendment in their belief that OK, so you have a right to keep and bear arms; you have the right to own a gun. But you dont have a right to the firearm parts that you want. You dont have a right to the gun that you want. You dont have a right to build your own firearm. You dont have a right to sell firearms.All of these things are now in question.

And theyre realizing that they cant take away the Second Amendment, but they can nibble away at all the things around the Second Amendment such that it becomes too cumbersome or too expensive to be able to exercise that right.

Theres always pressure on Congress to revisit the Second Amendment. The challenge is that most of the people who are applying that pressure, and most of the folks in Congress, have little to no understanding of firearms or firearms technology. So oftentimes what happens is that when they start to push solutions, those solutions dont actually solve the problem.

Thats also, quite frankly, been the issue in the courts. In many cases you have judges adjudicating over some of these court cases and they have very little understanding, once again, of firearm technology. For example, what is the definition of a gun? What is, in this case, a machine gun, when were talking about bump stocks? And when you look at the actual technology, you find out that in many cases the things that they are offering as solutions are not solutions.

Its smoke and mirrors. Its this Ive got to do something mentality.

And I always go back on that, and I always say, You know what? My car wont start, so I need to rotate the tires because, you know, Ive gotta do something.

Read the rest here:
Craig DeLuz: What the Supreme Court's Bump Stocks Ruling Means for the Second Amendment and Separation of ... - National Center for Public Policy...

(AP) Less than six years ago, then-President Donald Trump took on the influential gun lobby after the deadliest massacre in modern U.S. history. He announced that he had told the National Rifle Association that bump stocks are gone, arguing they turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.

On Friday, Trumps campaign to return to the White House defended a Supreme Court decision to strike down his own ban on those devices. Trump has been endorsed by the NRA and claimed this year in a speech that he did nothing to restrict guns.

SEE ALSO:

The Supreme Court's ruling called new attention to Trump's complicated record on the Second Amendment, one that he has downplayed this year given his conservative base's aversion to gun control even as Americans broadly support stricter restrictions on firearms, according to public polling.

As president, Trump grappled with the high school massacre in Parkland, Florida and other mass shootings, and at times pledged to strengthen gun laws, only to back away from those vows.

At a meeting with survivors and family members of the Parkland shooting in 2018, for instance, Trump promised to be very strong on background checks and later scolded a Republican senator for being afraid of the NRA. He claimed he would stand up to the gun lobby and finally get results on quelling gun violence.

But he later retreated after a meeting with the group, expressing support for modest changes to the federal background check system and for arming teachers, while saying in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that there was not much political support (to put it mildly).

Now, he casts himself as the best friend gun owners have ever had in the White House."

Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for his campaign, issued a statement Friday saying the court's decision should be respected.

President Trump has been and always will be a fierce defender of Americans Second Amendment rights and he is proud to be endorsed by the NRA, Leavitt said.

President Joe Biden called the Trump-era ban an important gun safety regulation, while the Democratic incumbent's campaign criticized Trump for nominating three of the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down the ban.

Weapons of war have no place on the streets of America, but Trumps Supreme Court justices have decided the gun lobby is more important than the safety of our kids and our communities, said Michael Tyler, a Biden campaign spokesman.

The Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration overstepped when in 2018 it banned bump stocks after a mass shooting in Las Vegas where hundreds were wounded and dozens were killed. The devices allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns.

The decision did not elicit an outpouring of response from most Republican members of Congress. That reflects the precarious situation it puts many in the GOP in as the ruling is seen as a victory for the pro-gun community despite overturning a Trump-era ban.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie is a Kentucky Republican who has antagonized Trump and who supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis failed bid for the White House. On Friday, he posted on X that Congress makes the laws, not the administrative branch and then wrote the top court had invalidated Trumps bump-stock ban. Other Republican federal lawmakers simply called it an unconstitutional ban but did not mention Trump.

The decision on Friday may gain more attention in the key Western battleground state of Nevada, where in 2017 a high-stakes gambler killed 60 people before killing himself, leaving his exact motive a mystery.

A Nevada state lawmaker who was among the 22,000 concertgoers who fled the barrage of bullets in Las Vegas in October 2017 said that No community has felt the devastating impact of bump stocks more than Nevadans.

Now more than ever, it is important to elect Democrats up and down the ballot to ensure we keep our communities safe from the epidemic of gun violence and prevent soulless, morally corrupt, and bankrupt MAGA Republicans beholden to the gun lobby from being in charge of the public safety of our communities, said assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui, a Democrat.

_____

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Farnoush Amiri and Scott Sonner contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:
Trump defied the NRA to ban bump stocks, now says he 'did nothing' to restrict guns - FOX 29

The Supreme Courts decision overturning the Trump-era ban on so-called bump stocks reflects an understanding of the mechanics not just of gunsmithing but also the Constitution. It is the latest step by the high court to restore the Second Amendment as a first-class article in the Bill of Rights. It will be decried by the left, particularly because the vote within the court was on ideological lines, but it bodes well for the rule of law.

All Americans were horrified at the massacre that in 2017 took the lives of 58 and wounded hundreds at Las Vegas. The slaughter was perpetrated by a man using firearms equipped with bump stocks. These accessories enable a gun to fire numerous bullets with a single pull of the trigger provided that the shooter maintains forward pressure on the rifles front grip with his non-trigger hand, Justice Clarence Thomas observes in the high courts majority opinion.

This tragedy, Justice Thomas adds, created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Yet before any legislation could emerge from Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives took it upon itself to ban the devices. The agencys argument was that bump stocks transform a semi-automatic rifle into a de facto machinegun. Such weapons are banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That law defines a machinegun as a weapon that, with a single function of the trigger, fires automatically more than one shot. The six justices in the majority found that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is actually not a machinegun, though, because it cannot fire more than one shot with just a single function of the trigger. Even if it could, Justice Thomas notes, it would not happen automatically.

Under this close analysis of the workings of rifles equipped with bump stocks in an opinion that even includes diagrammatic illustrations of the applicable components of the firearms in question Justice Thomas concludes that ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns. As Justice Samuel Alito notes in a concurring opinion, the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it.

It might be tempting to view this dispute as a straightforward example of regulatory overreach by a federal agency, an all too common feature of the administrative state that seeks to impose the will of bureaucrats on Americanss lives. Yet the Second Amendment the palladium* of our liberty stands as a subtext in this case. The gravity of the right to bear arms makes it all the more egregious to infringe it via an unjustifiable regulation.

That understanding animates Justice Alitos observation that an event that highlights the need to amend a law, a reference to the Las Vegas shooting, does not itself change the laws meaning. By contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, warns that todays ruling will have deadly consequences. She accuses the majority of misinterpreting the law passed in 1934, and says the ruling enables gun users and manufacturers to circumvent federal law.

For years, though, ATF denied that it had any legal authority to regulate bump stocks, Justice Thomas explains. That is why, he adds, liberals like Senator Feinstein groused that it was a mistake for the ATF to ban bump stocks. The regulation hinges on a dubious analysis, she said in 2018, claiming that bumping the trigger is not the same as pulling it. Feinstein called for Congress, not regulators, to act on the matter.

The late senators view is echoed by Justice Alito in his concurrence. There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns, he writes. Congress can amend the law, he adds, and might have already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. The Nines ruling today is a reminder that the right to bear arms, like the other liberties vouchsafed in the Constitution, cannot be so casually bumped aside by federal regulators.

________

* The phrase used for the Second Amendment by Judge St. George Tucker and, later, by Justice Joseph Story.

See more here:
The Rational Ruling on Bump Stocks - The New York Sun

Since the minute it was ratified, the First Amendment has been as clear as water on one thing: Government officials may not use their power to punish or abridge political viewpoints.

Thats the whole point of the speech part of the amendment.

Because power-hungry functionaries keep refusing to abide by that bright-line rule, the Supreme Court periodically steps in to remind us. Thats what it did on May 30 in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, when all nine justices ruled that Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, improperly pressured insurance companies and banks to deny the NRA access to their services.

The case wasnt complicated. Vullo found a minor infraction in insurance that Lloyds of London and Chubb Limited had underwritten, through which the NRA provided its members access to insurance. Vullo then told Lloyds officials she wouldnt penalize the company if it agreed to stop underwriting all firearm-related policies and substantially scaled back its NRA business.

Then, in a guidance letter to all entities regulated by her department, Vullo specifically discouraged them from doing business with the NRA and to consider reputational risks involved in doing so. In a joint press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Vullo went even further, urging all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York to discontinue their arrangement with the NRA. Vullos department entered consent decrees with Lloyds and Chubb in which the latter agreed to not provide insurance through the NRA, even if otherwise lawful.

Vullo also made clear to Lloyds that she wanted to hobble all gun groups, and that (to quote the case syllabus) she would focus her enforcement actions solely on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.'

Vullos actions were obviously coercive. If all the facts as presented in this case are found to be accurate when the case goes back to lower courts, then Vullo used the power of her office to target gun promotion by going after the NRAs business partners.

All nine justices rightly considered this case not according to their like or dislike of the NRA, but as a matter of First Amendment protection. The unanimous decision was written by left-leaning Justice Sonia Sotomayor, even though her jurisprudence consistently approves of gun control. The unanimity indicates how strong a First Amendment case this was, and of how important that amendment is.

As Sotomayor noted, Vullo in her private capacity is free to use her First Amendment rights to speak against the NRAs agenda. But the Constitution insists that Vullo not wield her power to punish or suppress the NRAs First Amendment rights.

At the heart of the First Amendments Free Speech Clause, Sotomayor wrote, is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

This lesson should be learned, and the amendments letter observed, not just by direct government regulators and enforcement officials. Government entities such as public schools and state colleges, too, must be bastions of free speech. A state college dean or professor no less than a state financial services regulator must not use viewpoint discrimination to penalize speech (other than illegal physical threats) or to determine employment status. In particular, it is manifestly unconstitutional to deny employment or promotion to an instructor who refuses to sign a diversity, equity, and inclusion statement of beliefs.

Our free and democratic society is a treasure. The high court is right to keep officials from gunning it down.

Read the original here:
Theres a First Amendment right to express Second Amendment views - Washington Examiner

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory May 29 in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation.

In a stinging rebuke of New Yorks blacklisting campaign against the NRA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled for the NRA in its case against former New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo. The decision remands the NRAs case to the lower court reviving the NRAs claims that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, violated the NRAs First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurers to cut ties with the NRA in 2018.

This victory is a win for the NRA in the fight to protect freedom, says NRA President Bob Barr. This is a historic moment for the NRA in its stand against governmental overreach. Let this be clear: the voice of the NRA membership is as loud and influential as ever. Regulators are now on notice: this is a win for not only the NRA, but every organization who might otherwise suffer from an abuse of government power.

The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 2024. The case is one of the most high-profile First Amendment cases in recent memory, with dozens of legal experts and constitutional scholars, including the ACLU, siding with the NRA.

This is a moment of truth, says NRA EVP & CEO Doug Hamlin. The decision underscores the importance of this principled fight. When it comes to defending our members and their freedoms, the NRA will never back down.

The opinion of the court, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, states, Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entitys threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Today, the court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that.

This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom, says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy. This is a victory for the NRAs millions of members and the freedoms that define America.

In the opinion, Justice Sotomayor writes that Vullo was free to criticize the NRA but could not wield her power, however, to threaten enforcement actions against DFS-regulated entities in order to punish or suppress the NRAs gun-promotion advocacy.

Justice Sotomayor continues, One can reasonably infer from the complaint that Vullo coerced DFS-regulated entities to cut their ties with the NRA in order to stifle the NRAs gun-promotion advocacy and advance her views on gun control.

In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the urging of Governor Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use DFS regulatory power to financially blacklist the NRA coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullos actions were meant to silence the NRA using guidance letters, backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to drop the Association. The NRA's First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial courts ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRAs claims. The court ruled that in an era of enhanced corporate social responsibility, it was reasonable for New York's financial regulator to warn banks and insurance companies against servicing pro-gun groups based on the supposed social backlash against those groups advocacy. The court also ruled that Vullos guidance written on her official letterhead and invoking her regulatory powers was not a directive to the institutions she regulated, but rather a mere expression of her political preferences.

On Feb. 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On Nov. 3, 2023, the court granted review of the case.

Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRAs position, including a filing by several of the nations foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also included a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.

On March 18, 2024, the court heard oral arguments in the case. ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA. Cole said, It was a campaign by the states highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.

Eugene Volokh joined Brewer and the ACLU in representing the NRA, along with Brewer partners Sarah B. Rogers and Noah Peters.

2024 National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. This may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Read more here:
SCOTUS unanimous for NRA in First Amendment battle - Buckeye Firearms Association