WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts on Tuesday blocked a bipartisan bill that would have banned stockpiles in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that struck down a Trump-era rule banning gun accessories.
Ricketts, of Nebraska, opposed New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich’s request that the chamber approve his bill — co-sponsored by Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins — by unanimous consent.
Heinrich tried to pass the bill the trio introduced last year, following last week’s Supreme Court ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives did not have the authority to ban bump stocks.
“As a firearms owner, I don’t see a legal use for the stock,” Heinrich said. “What they are designed for is a mass shooting.”
Bill, S. 1909would ban the sale of bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire multiple rounds rapidly, like a machine gun.
Ricketts argued that the Supreme Court made the right decision and found that the statute not only bans bump stocks but also “targets other firearm accessories.”
Ricketts added that the bill violates the Second Amendment.
“This bill seeks to ban as many firearm accessories as possible and give the ATF broad authority to ban most semi-automatic weapons,” Ricketts said. “This is an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners.”
Heinrich said the bill would not ban a huge number of firearm accessories, but would ban things such as Glock gun switches, which can be attached to the side of a Glock pistol to convert a semi-automatic handgun into a fully automatic weapon.
“I think Americans understand what common sense gun safety looks like,” Heinrich said.
The Senate procedure requires 60 votes to adopt most legal acts. However, for the chamber to approve a measure unanimously, no senator can object.
Supreme Court ruling
Supreme Court on Friday rescinded an ATF regulation adopted under former President Donald Trump after the Las Vegas mass shooting that defined a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a stock as a machine gun. Machine guns are generally prohibited under federal law.
During this mass shooting, a gunman used a rifle fitted with stock and fired into a crowd of 22,000 at a music festival, killing 58 people that evening, with two more later dying from their injuries and over 500 injured.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor that the bill was needed because the Supreme Court’s decision was “a complete disgrace.”
“It endangers our communities, it threatens law enforcement and it makes it easier for mass shooters to carry out carnage,” said Schumer, a New York Democrat.
The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch defender of Second Amendment gun rights, found that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by banning the sale and possession of bump stocks, which he argued were significantly different from machine guns.
“Nothing changes when a semi-automatic rifle is equipped with a stock,” Thomas wrote. “Between each shot, the shooter must release pressure on the trigger and allow it to reset before pressing the trigger again to fire another shot.”
Additionally, the ideologically divided decision limits the federal government’s ability to address gun violence in the absence of congressional action.
More federal gun regulation is unlikely
With a divided Congress, it is unlikely that any gun safety legislation will be passed. But after Friday’s decision, President Joe Biden called on Congress to ban bump stocks and assault weapons.
“The American people should not have to live in fear of this massive devastation,” Biden said at the time.
The last time Congress passed gun legislation was in 2022, after two mass shootings occurred less than two weeks apart.
One of them took place at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers died. The second occurred in Buffalo, New York, where white supremacists targeted a predominantly Black neighborhood and killed 10 Black people.
Year 2022 gun safety legislation it didn’t ban all firearms, but it did provide funding for mental health care and to support states pass red flag laws, which, among other things, allow courts to temporarily take away firearms from a person who poses a danger to themselves or others.
That same year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a major gun case that invalidated a New York law prohibiting the carrying of firearms in public places without a showing of special need for protection.
Another weapons case is pending in connection with this decision in court which will be a test of federal law prohibiting a person who is the subject of a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. A decision on this matter is expected this month.
