1 00:00:01,466 --> 00:00:04,000 GEOFF BENNETT: Another big day at the U.S. Supreme Court, 2 00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:09,000 as the justices handed down a decision with major implications for firearm regulations. 3 00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:13,800 In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority found that the government 4 00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:18,800 exceeded its authority when it issued a ban in 2018 on bump stocks. That's a gun 5 00:00:20,300 --> 00:00:22,766 accessory used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. 6 00:00:22,766 --> 00:00:25,000 AMNA NAWAZ: A bump stock is used on the back end of a 7 00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:29,633 semiautomatic rifle. It allows the user to reengage the trigger continuously, 8 00:00:29,633 --> 00:00:33,933 dramatically increasing the rate of fire like that of an automatic weapon. 9 00:00:33,933 --> 00:00:38,900 Marcia Coyle, our Supreme Court analyst, has been following this case closely and joins me now. 10 00:00:44,500 --> 00:00:46,566 Marcia, it's always great to speak with you. 11 00:00:46,566 --> 00:00:50,866 So, this federal bump stock ban was approved back in 2018 by then-President Trump, 12 00:00:50,866 --> 00:00:55,833 and it was in response to that 2017 Las Vegas outdoor music concert shooting; 13 00:00:57,200 --> 00:00:59,566 58 people were killed. A bump stock was used in that. 14 00:00:59,566 --> 00:01:04,533 But just remind us, how did this issue get before the Supreme Court in the first place? 15 00:01:06,366 --> 00:01:08,533 MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": The way so many cases do, Amna. 16 00:01:08,533 --> 00:01:13,000 Michael Cargill, who was a gun shop owner in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the 17 00:01:15,300 --> 00:01:18,833 Bureau of ATF's rule, ban on bump stocks. He won before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 18 00:01:21,233 --> 00:01:25,666 Circuit. It was the Biden administration that brought the case, the appeal to the Supreme Court. 19 00:01:27,966 --> 00:01:30,200 AMNA NAWAZ: And, Marcia, this was not about the Second Amendment here. This was about regulation 20 00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:32,300 and how the court views this -- views it. 21 00:01:32,300 --> 00:01:34,333 Alito, writing in his concurring opinion, 22 00:01:34,333 --> 00:01:38,433 said this: "There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted this law would 23 00:01:38,433 --> 00:01:43,433 not have seen any material difference between a machine gun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped 24 00:01:45,233 --> 00:01:48,266 with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear and we must follow it." 25 00:01:48,266 --> 00:01:53,233 In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said this: "The court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To 26 00:01:55,300 --> 00:01:59,066 do so, it casts aside Congress' definition of machine gun and seizes upon one that is 27 00:02:00,966 --> 00:02:04,266 inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text. When I see a bird 28 00:02:04,266 --> 00:02:09,266 that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." 29 00:02:11,333 --> 00:02:15,033 Marcia, what does this tell us about how the justices were thinking about this issue? 30 00:02:15,033 --> 00:02:19,133 MARCIA COYLE: Well, first of all, this was very much a case of statutory interpretation, 31 00:02:19,133 --> 00:02:21,733 looking at the language of the statute. 32 00:02:21,733 --> 00:02:26,600 And it tells us almost immediately in the vote that the justices looked at the 33 00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:31,400 language and saw it very differently on the left and the right. In fact, 34 00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:36,100 Justice Kagan said at one point during arguments that, yes, textualism, 35 00:02:36,100 --> 00:02:40,666 sticking to the text is fine, but it's not inconsistent with common sense. 36 00:02:40,666 --> 00:02:45,666 So she believed the court should be looking little broadly in terms of what the statute 37 00:02:47,666 --> 00:02:51,200 was designed to do. But you can look at it two ways really, Amna. It is of a piece 38 00:02:53,366 --> 00:02:57,400 with the conservative rulings in the recent years in which gun restrictions were lifted. 39 00:02:58,933 --> 00:03:02,733 And it's also a piece with the conservative justices' concerns 40 00:03:02,733 --> 00:03:07,733 that federal agencies have gained too much power and are overreaching. 41 00:03:09,866 --> 00:03:12,700 AMNA NAWAZ: It's been reported there are about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the 42 00:03:12,700 --> 00:03:17,333 Department of Justice changed its classification, effectively pulling it from the market. 43 00:03:17,333 --> 00:03:21,033 And we asked Chip Brownlee, who's a reporter with an organization called The Trace that 44 00:03:21,033 --> 00:03:26,033 covers gun violence, about the potential impact of this decision. Here's what he had to say. 45 00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:30,600 CHIP BROWNLEE, The Trace: We saw these devices be used in the deadliest mass shooting in American 46 00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:34,433 history. And so I think if you have somebody who is intent on committing a crime like that and 47 00:03:36,566 --> 00:03:40,800 gets their hands on one of these devices, they can essentially take their gun from a gun that 48 00:03:42,866 --> 00:03:46,533 shoots 60, 70, 80 rounds per minute to a gun that shoots 500, 600, 700 rounds per minute. 49 00:03:49,066 --> 00:03:51,100 AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, did that potential impact 50 00:03:51,100 --> 00:03:54,433 come up in any of the justices' questions or their discussion? 51 00:03:54,433 --> 00:03:58,566 MARCIA COYLE: Well, certainly, during oral arguments, the justices were keenly aware, 52 00:03:58,566 --> 00:04:03,500 I believe, of the impact of bump stocks and what they can do. 53 00:04:03,500 --> 00:04:07,600 But, again, they were focused on the text, the language of 54 00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:12,600 the Bureau of ATF's rule and whether it encompassed bump stocks as machine guns. 55 00:04:14,700 --> 00:04:18,500 AMNA NAWAZ: We also know there are a number of federal firearm possession-related cases pending 56 00:04:18,500 --> 00:04:22,533 either before the Supreme Court or making their way through appeals courts right now. 57 00:04:22,533 --> 00:04:27,533 One of the biggest is the United States v. Rahimi. What's at stake there? 58 00:04:29,633 --> 00:04:32,800 MARCIA COYLE: That's the federal ban on possession of guns by anyone who is under a domestic 59 00:04:34,900 --> 00:04:39,533 violence protective order. It's going to be a fascinating case. It is a Second Amendment case. 60 00:04:41,633 --> 00:04:45,466 Lower federal courts said, using Justice Clarence Thomas' new test for Second Amendment, 61 00:04:47,433 --> 00:04:51,833 that there was no historical analog or anything in history that allowed such a 62 00:04:53,933 --> 00:04:58,200 ban to go forward. So that could be decided this next week, any time before the end of the term. 63 00:05:01,100 --> 00:05:04,400 AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, we know there are a number of key issues on other cases 64 00:05:04,400 --> 00:05:08,700 still before the court. What other kind of issues and rulings could we see this term? 65 00:05:08,700 --> 00:05:11,900 MARCIA COYLE: Well, obviously, one of the most closely watched cases 66 00:05:11,900 --> 00:05:16,900 is Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. 67 00:05:19,166 --> 00:05:22,233 Besides that, there are two major social media cases involving the First Amendment. There's also 68 00:05:24,333 --> 00:05:28,233 several big cases involving federal regulatory agencies and their power, their authority. 69 00:05:30,600 --> 00:05:33,733 The court is a little bit behind right now. Usually, 70 00:05:33,733 --> 00:05:38,733 it tries to wrap up the term by the end of June, but there's still a lot left to decide. 71 00:05:40,666 --> 00:05:43,833 AMNA NAWAZ: That is our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle, joining us tonight. 72 00:05:43,833 --> 00:05:46,100 Marcia, always great to see you. Thank you. 73 00:05:46,100 --> 00:05:47,033 MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure.