Sessions: DOJ Forging Ahead With Plans To Ban Bump Stocks

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions holds a news conference at the Department of Justice December 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Sessions called the question-and-answer session with reporters to highlight his department's fight to reduce violent crime.
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 15: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions holds a news conference at the Department of Justice on December 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Sessions called the question-and-answer session with rep... WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 15: U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions holds a news conference at the Department of Justice on December 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Sessions called the question-and-answer session with reporters to highlight his department's fight to reduce violent crime. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Department officials are forging ahead with plans to ban rapid-fire bump stocks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday — a move that would likely set the stage for long legal battles with gun manufacturers while the devices remain on the market.

Sessions said top officials within the department believe gun accessories like the ones used in last year’s Las Vegas massacre can be banned through the regulatory process. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives previously said it was powerless to restrict the devices without action from Congress.

The devices allow semi-automatic rifles to resemble a fully automatic weapon. The ATF approved them in 2010, finding they don’t amount to machine guns, which are prohibited under federal firearms law.

“We’ve had to deal with previous ATF legal opinions, but our top people in the Department of Justice have believed for some time that we can, through regulatory process, not allow the bump stock to convert a weapon from semiautomatic to fully automatic,” Sessions told a gathering of state attorney generals.

The comment comes as the Justice Department faces pressure from President Donald Trump to take action on bump stocks. The department was already reviewing whether it had the authority to regulate the devices when Trump last week ordered it to work toward banning them, spurred by the Valentine’s Day killings of 17 people at a Florida high school. Bump stocks weren’t used in that shooting, but it renewed a national dialogue about far-ranging solutions to gun violence.

Bump stocks have been a focal point of that debate, but outlawing them is not simple. Gun manufacturers and owners are likely to sue if ATF bans them ahead of new legislation from Congress. But any congressional effort to create new gun control laws would need support from the pro-gun Republican majority. A bid to ban the accessory fizzled last year, even as lawmakers expressed openness to the idea after nearly 60 people were killed in Las Vegas.

Despite the obvious hurdles, Trump this week insisted something would be done. And quickly.

“I’m writing that out myself. I don’t care if Congress does it or not,” he said Monday. “You put it into the machine gun category, which is what it is, it becomes, essentially, a machine gun, and nobody is going to be able to — it’s going to very hard to get them.”

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for jtx jtx says:

    Good

  2. Avatar for tao tao says:

    This could take quite a while.

  3. Ok, ban future sales. How about getting the ones all the ammosexuals will run out and buy before the ban?

  4. Avatar for tsp tsp says:

    Stupid! Stupid! Stupid move on their part! This invalidates literally ALL of their rationale for reversing every last one of President Obama’s achievements. They have claimed loudyly and proudly that Pres. Obama did not have the executive authority to do what he did in order to safeguard the public interest. Now this??? It’s almost like they’re just asking for Obama to come back into office.

  5. Am I the only person who doesn’t believe the Trump regime will actually ban bump stocks in a legally sustainable way? I’ll bet this is a subterfuge to slap together an easily reversed change that a court can reverse, and to discourage congressional action.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

16 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for bojimbo26 Avatar for theod Avatar for davidfarrar Avatar for ignoreland Avatar for jeffrey Avatar for tao Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for tsp Avatar for jtx Avatar for gusfabriani Avatar for tiowally Avatar for maximus Avatar for demosthenes59 Avatar for jakebarnes

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: