[Charles Martel]

For those who are upset with the ban on bump stocks, remember that the ban on bump stocks is a symptom of the current restriction on automatic weapons. In the mean time, Trump is merely enforcing current court decision on the issue of automatic weapons. If people would like the court imposed ban on automatic weapons overturned, then they should address that issue, not the ban on bump stocks itself, which will have little practical effect for most gun users, and is merely a symptom of the questionable court decision.

That's just the problem - there are some states that prohibit Class III firearms ownership (usually law enforcement are exempt from this prohibition), but automatic weapons are technically not banned by federal law - only tightly restricted. Per the National Firearms Act, the definition of fully-automatic firearms is also very precisely spelled out - and serves as the "test" for devices such as the bump-fire stock. So, exactly which court rulings on automatic weapons are you thinking of?

[mbrfl]

I stand corrected. As you point out, the restrictions fall into the category of state restrictions and Federal restrictions. The Supreme Court has not ruled automatic weapons illegal, but it has upheld challenges to states banning them. Nor has it overturned those Federal restrictions you pointed out. So to the extent that the bump stock ban conforms to existing Federal law, it is not new law per se but enforcement of existing law.