Lummis and GOP allies urge SCOTUS to lift bump stock ban

Sen. Cynthia Lummis and GOP Colleagues File⁢ Brief ⁤in Support of Gun Owners⁢ Fighting Bump​ Stock Ban

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and eight other Republican senators have filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court, exclusively obtained by the Washington Examiner, in support of gun owners challenging the federal government’s ban on bump‍ stocks.

The⁢ Supreme Court is currently ‌considering whether to uphold a ban on bump stocks, which are devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire multiple rounds rapidly. The ban ​was implemented in 2019 under former President⁣ Donald Trump,‍ following ‍the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. In response,⁤ Trump ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to review bump stocks.

In 2018, the ATF instructed individuals in possession of bump stocks to either destroy them or turn ⁢them​ in ‌to a local ATF office by March ⁣2019. The bureau reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns” under the⁣ National Firearms Act, ⁤leading to the current Supreme Court challenge.

The case,⁤ Garland v. Cargill, will determine whether the ATF exceeded its authority with the ‌reclassification and ban.

Protecting Gun Rights ‍and Challenging Federal Overreach

Lummis’s brief argues⁣ that the ATF’s ban not only violates the Second Amendment rights of Wyoming residents but also represents a dangerous expansion of federal bureaucrats’ interpretation of​ the law. She accuses the ATF of creating new federal crimes through the‌ misuse of the Chevron doctrine.

“The ATF’s role is to interpret existing laws passed by Congress, not to grant itself broad authority to confiscate firearms from‍ law-abiding gun owners in Wyoming, as demonstrated by the ⁢bump stock ban,” Lummis stated. She emphasizes ‍that the outcome of Garland ‍v. Cargill is crucial for preserving gun rights in America and preventing overreach by⁤ gun control activists.

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), who also signed the brief, echoes⁢ Lummis’s concerns about unelected bureaucrats abusing their authority. He emphasizes the importance of this case in safeguarding Second Amendment rights and preventing extreme ⁣gun control measures.

A Coalition of Support

In addition to Lummis and ​Ricketts, the brief was signed by Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY), ‌Mike Lee (R-UT), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). The brief also received support from University of Wyoming ⁢law professor George‌ A. Mocsary and Independence Institute counsel David B. Kopel.

By standing together, these senators and legal experts aim to protect the rights of ⁣gun owners​ and challenge ​what they perceive as ​federal⁣ overreach in interpreting and ⁣enforcing firearms‌ laws.

Click here to read more from the Washington‍ Examiner.

According to the brief, what⁤ alternative methods could be used to regulate devices like bump stocks without infringing on Second Amendment rights

,‌ 2019. Failure to comply with ‌the ban could result in penalties, including fines and ⁢imprisonment.

However,⁢ a group of gun owners, represented ​by the ‍advocacy group Gun Owners​ of America, filed a lawsuit challenging the ban. They argue⁤ that the ban is unconstitutional, infringing on their Second‌ Amendment rights to bear arms. The case, known as ⁢Guedes v. Bureau‍ of Alcohol, Tobacco,⁣ Firearms and Explosives, is currently before the Supreme Court,⁣ awaiting ‌a decision on whether to hear the appeal.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis and her Republican colleagues have now stepped in to‌ support ‌the gun owners in their ⁢fight against the bump stock ban. Their amicus curiae brief highlights the importance‌ of protecting the Second Amendment and raises‌ concerns about the government’s authority ⁣to‌ ban a device that is⁢ used for lawful purposes.

The⁤ brief argues that bump ‍stocks are not firearms themselves and do not convert semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. Instead, they⁢ enhance the rate⁤ of⁤ fire by using recoil to facilitate rapid trigger pulls.‍ This, according to the brief,⁣ does ​not transform⁢ the fundamental nature of ​the firearm or⁣ its operation. It ‍further claims that the ban on bump stocks sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to further government encroachment on ⁣Second Amendment rights.

Sen. Lummis and her ⁣colleagues also emphasize the need⁢ for clarity and consistency ‍in‌ interpreting laws related to firearms. They argue that the ATF’s decision to regulate⁤ bump stocks as machine guns is a flawed interpretation of the law. By urging the Supreme Court ⁣to review the case, they ‌hope to establish ⁤a clear ‌standard for determining whether a⁣ device ​should be classified ‍as a firearm.

Furthermore, the brief highlights the‌ existence of alternative methods to​ regulate ‍or ban devices like bump stocks,⁢ without infringing on Second Amendment rights. It suggests ‍that Congress should be the appropriate body to consider and enact any such regulations, not the executive branch or administrative agencies like the ATF.

This case is not just about⁣ bump stocks; it is about the broader issue of government overreach and the protection of individual rights. Sen. Lummis and her Republican colleagues‍ make‍ a strong⁣ case for upholding the⁣ Second Amendment and ensuring that the government does not overstep its bounds in regulating ‌firearms and related devices.

As the Supreme Court considers⁣ whether to take up this case, the amicus curiae⁣ brief ​filed by​ Sen. Lummis‍ and her GOP colleagues adds a significant voice to the debate. ‍It highlights the concerns of gun owners ‍and the potential ramifications of‌ allowing the bump stock ban to stand. Regardless of ​the outcome, this case⁣ will undoubtedly have⁢ far-reaching implications for Second Amendment rights and the balance between individual liberties and government regulation.