administration. bump stocks are accessories that essentially allow semi-automatic rifles to fire more quickly. but in a 6-3 decision, the court said a law aimed at banning machine guns cannot be interpreted to include bump stocks. majority opinion reads in part, quote, we conclude a semi-automatic rifle is not a machine gun because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. joining us now, nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor, laura jarrett, and katie phang, msnbc legal contributor and host of "the katie phang show" on msnbc, also barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and professor at the university of michigan law school and an msnbc legal analyst. so, yamiche, you were there, just as this decision came out. what are we learning about this decision? >> well, this decision is the supreme court saying the atf was wrong when it banned bump stocks as part of a regulation that was passed under former president donald trump and in particular the justices, this is a 6-3 split decision along ideological lines, the conservative justices here is aing it is wrongaing. it is wrong to regulate it and to consider it a machine gun. i want to read part of the concurring opinion here that justice alito wrote. i think it is really important. this 2018 ban went into effect after a 2017 shooting in las vegas where 58 people were killed in a shooting where the shooter used a bump stock. the horrible shooting spree in las vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning but an event that highlights the need to mandate a law does not change the laws, congress can amend the law and perhaps would have done so if atf had stuck to its earlier interpretation. this ruling prompted a vigorous dissenting opinion written by justice sotomayor. she is talking about the fact she considers bump stocks a machine gun and wrote, when i see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, i call that bird a duck. they said this is not a hard case. all the textual evidence points to the same interpretation. a single pull of a trigger, a shooter can fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure. you see this real split between the conservative justices on the court and the liberal justices on the court and it does also underscore that even a ban that was passed by former president trump who is now saying he's going to respect this decision, it shows you even in this case the supreme court is saying it was wrong to regulate bump stocks in the way that the atf did. >> and, katie, so what does this supreme court ruling tell you and, you know, we're reading through it and getting almost the importance of every word in this decision. what does it tell you? >> well, as soon as the decision came out, and i saw it was a clarence thomas-issued decision i knew it would be bad news. we are clearly in america, gun culture and murder happy when it comes to guns. putting that aside, what you see here is a conservative majority of six justices that are statutorily looking and interpreting a federal statute in a way that kind of conveniently works with what they want. they go very quickly in the majority opinion to say this is what the definition is of a machine gun. as defined by congress. and the majority says the bump stock does not added to a rifle make that rifle a machine gun as defined by federal statute. and the copout, jose, that happens often with this conservative majority is the shrugging of the proverbial shoulders where they say, if you don't like our ruling, if you don't like our decision, then congress should actually go and do its job and amend the federal statute to include bump stocks. but what is fascinating is our very intrepid intern working with us this summer found in 2022 there was a case, a petition for writ of cert, and what the supreme court doesn't take all cases that are coming before it. it actually chooses certain cases to take. so, there was a petition for writ of cert on another decision. >> what is that again? >> it wants the supreme court to take the case, and issue a ruling to put it -- to finality. if there is a split in the circuit's meeting, there is some type of disparities in the circuits. in 2022, the gun owners of america incorporated, sued merrick garland and what did they want? they wanted it see if the definition of this federal statute included bump stocks for machine guns. and the supreme court said we're not taking this case in 2022. there was some nuances. the decisions that come out from the supreme court have exceptionally, exceptionally grave consequences because this is now the final law as interpreted by the supreme court. but, again, it is how it is interpreted that is important. these conservative justices said, you know what, we don't want to actually cross the nra, we don't want to cross the gun owners, we have rahini to be decided, maybe next week, thursday or friday. how are they going to look at that? i heard leah litman say in the prior hour, if congress goes and they amend this federal statute, that doesn't mean you're not going to see a challenge under the second amendment as to whether or not this bump stock addition to a rifle qualifies under the statute as a machine gun. you'll see this go back to the supreme court. right now, i think you see the supreme court end run that challenge in the future. >> laura, in reference to the las vegas shooting in 2017, the court's majority opinion says an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law's meaning and that's what katie was talking about, about, you know, how it is that they focus on what they decide to focus on, and so your reaction to this? >> there is no question this is a conservative majority, a super majority, that was appointed by donald trump, that does not believe that it is their role as justices to search for facts and then sort of tailor those facts to the law. they think they're there to just execute the plain version of the law, and they think under this rule, a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun. so they're saying, if congress wants to do something about that, and the people's representatives want to do something about that, by all means go ahead, but they're not going to do it, they're not going to do the lawmaker's job for them. even though it is the worst mass shooting in modern u.s. history, the vegas shooting, sort of was the outgrowth of what we think the reason the bump stocks were banned in the first place, the reason that the former president was sort of spurned to take action about it, knowing how horrific that shooting was, for them, that's not enough. >> i'm just wondering, barbara, it is the supreme court talking about the difference between an atf regulation and written law, including one that was the national firearms act of 1934. >> yeah, i think you have to squint to see the logic of justice thomas in this case. in 1934, when this was passed, it came in response to gangland murders by al capone and other gangsters who were using machine guns to mow down people with mass killings. congress said, there is no reason for civilians to have machine guns, which is why they were banned in 1934. and so fast-forward years later, when we now have some technology that can convert a semi-automatic weapon, which is lawful, into a machine gun, and suddenly that's permissible. it is absolutely the opposite of what congress said in 1934. but what justice thomas does with the diagrams in his majority opinion is said, if you look at it mechanically, it is not really a single pull of the trigger, because the bump stock is doing the work of pulling the trigger. but what justice sotomayor says, when you talk about pulling the trigger, you're talking about what the human is doing and the human is pulling the trigger once. with a logical reading of this statute, of course, a bump stock is now converting a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun and back to the logic of 1934, no civilian should be able to possess a gun that has this capability. so, to me, this is just more evidence of two things, one is this supreme court's desire to end what they call the administrative state by giving agencies power to interpret statutes and the other is the fetish they have with guns. >> and so, katie, we were talking about this before on the air, the whole concept and the debate going on forever about strict constructionists versus people who interpret the law, including the circumstances of the time. >> yeah, so a lot of times conservative judges like to say i'm a strict constructionist, i look only at the language of the statute, which by the way is fine. i don't have a problem with that. what i have a problem with is the fact that to barb's point, you have to kind of squint to see the logic from justice thomas and that's true, but you don't have to squint to see the logic of the dissent from justice sotomayor which justices kagan and brown jackson joined in. if you look at this, it clearly says the same interpretation applies, a bump stock equipped semi-automatic is a machine gun. you can fire continuous shots without any human input besides maintaining forward pressure. 90 rounds in ten seconds was the forensic evidence from that las vegas shooting. there is no human capability, right, of 90 rounds in only ten seconds, the gun has to do it. so, that fits with the statutory definition of a machine gun. it is the issue of convenience. can you interpret a federal statute in a way that works for you versus how it works for someone else, and i'm telling you right now, if we had a majority on the liberal side, you would have seen a consistent ruling with the atf. you have to give deference to the atf. what are they there for? what is that organization there for, that agency, if you're not going to give them deference for the rules they promulgate. >> the supreme court in its majority decision talks about the fact that it is the responsibility of congress to either create or amend laws. there is a political side to all of this. >> there is certainly a political side to this. it is interesting because this was passed under former president donald trump, this was his atf that passed this ban. but you're hearing from people like president biden and the biden campaign, i should say, who are saying this really underscores the dangers they say of gun culture in this country, and they are in some ways pushing to say we need more democrats elected in order to regulate guns and to keep people safe here. among the republican side, you're seeing donald trump and his campaign saying they're going to respect this decision. they brought up the second amendment, even though this -- talking to legal experts, this isn't a second amendment case, it was an interpretation of the rules that the atf was passing. but it does tell you these are going to be the politics. abortion is a big issue in the politics here as we go toward the presidential election. but so is guns, talking to the vice president's office, while she's become a prominent voice on abortion, having a number of events on guns and really highlighting sort of the dangers of mass shootings, including, of course, the one in 2017, where 58 people died in las vegas, which is really the impetus for why this ban went into effect. you're going to hear more from democrats saying, look, this is the supreme court that is not doing the right thing, you should be electing more democrats, but definitely underscores the political issue here. jose? >> both sides on this opinion go back to history and laws, something they say laws are the ultimate arbiter of this issue. but, boy, so much to talk about. yamiche alcindor, laura jarrett, katie phang, barbara mcquade, thank you very much. up next, reaction from gun safety advocates is coming in fast. we're going to be hearing from every town for gun safety next. plus, we'll talk about the ratifications of this decision with a retired atf agent. we're back in 90 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. os you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. not flossing well? then add the whoa! of listerine to your routine. new science shows listerine is 5x more effective than floss at reducing plaque above the gumline. for a cleaner, healthier mouth. ahhhhh. listerine. feel the whoa! ♪ [suspenseful music] trains. [whoosh] ♪ trains that sense what isn't on the schedule. ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. ♪ to see hundreds of miles of tracks. ♪ [vroom] [train horn] [buzz] clearing the way, [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong. 14 past the hour. we're back with our breaking news. last hour the supreme court announced their decision overturning the trump era ban on gun bump stocks, which allow for hundreds of bullets to be fired per minute. joining us now is nick suplina, senior vice president of law and policy at every town for gun safety. thank you very much for being with us this morning. what is your reaction to this ruling? >> well, i think we once again have seen from the supreme court a decision to go with politics over reason and public safety. we're disappointed in this decision. the supreme court had the opportunity to right the wrong of the fifth circuit's opinion and it didn't take that opportunity. the fact of the matter is, right, we knew when we saw justice thomas' decision what this was going to look like, and the fact of the matter is that this supreme court will use whatever logic it needs to get to the political outcome it wants. this was not a textualist decision or originalist decision to comment on your conversation earlier. it is not even second amendment decision at all, but what it is is an outcome that a trump supreme court ensured would happen, while atf is trying to keep dangerous guns off our streets, the same one that took 60 lives and injured 411 others in las vegas, the supreme court just put those weapons right back on our streets. so we're disappointed today. but we're ready to keep fighting to keep americans safe. >> and so how would that fight look like and how would that fight change after today? >> well, look, there is, you know there is no question that congress can act here to fix this rule. but, let's take a step back. congress has already spoken on machine guns. it has said very clearly they have no place in civilian hands. so, what the supreme court did today was really take action against the will of congress and the will of the people, and the fact is that across the country, there are, you know, republican governors signing laws, banning machine guns, banning bump stocks and similar devices. but the fact is what really stands out to me today is that elections matter and the composition of this court matters. president biden came and spoke to every town this week. he made it clear what is at stake in this election, between donald trump whose court just struck this law and another biden administration which is by far the most impressive gun safety administration in history. so, what needs to be done is the composition of this court needs to change, that can only happen if, you know, quite honestly, president biden wins again, democrats control congress because this supreme court has showed itself willing to play politics with our lives. >> thank you very much for being with us. really appreciate it. >> my pleasure. i want to bring in jim cavanaugh. jim, great to see you. what is your reaction to this first? >> jose, it is a horrible decision. it is nonsensical. it is sad that the supreme court would rule this way. bump stock clearly turns a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. the trigger is pulled once and the explosive action of the cartridges keeps firing the weapon. and that's what the 1934 congress tried to define. if you see that shooter there, his trigger is held. he's not moving his trigger finger. his trigger finger is held still, the explosion sends the gun back against his shoulder, and in a traditionally manufactured submachine gun, only the slide goes back, which is the top of the gun. and so basically this was a two clever by halfway to get around the law, and the atf director interpreted appropriately said it is the submachine gun. and the supreme court just, you know, lost their common sense. i mean, we're a nation based on common law, but apparently not common sense. and, you know, it is akin to a boater hanging four tires off the side of his boat, and when the coast guard stops and says, well, this is a car, so you have no authority over me. i mean, this is -- it is really a sad time for a court to make that kind of ruling. and the argument that you -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> no, no, i'm just wondering about that. because you are absolutely correct. and the fact is that what is it that a machine gun means, right? and so, if you pull that trigger once, and for whatever reason, regardless of the technology used behind it, the weapon continues to fire, that is in and of itself what a machine gun is, where am i wrong? >> you're exactly right. and, look, in 1934, the national firearms act was a result of the gangsterism of the 30s. in 1933, four law enforcement officers were killed at the kansas city train station, the kansas city union train station, when pretty boy floyd with a submachine gun tried to break out a frank nash who is being transported to the federal prison at leavenworth. they tried to break minimum out and killed four law enforcement officers, two kansas city officers, a chief of police in oklahoma and fbi agent were killed by submachine guns and that was the last in the string of those and congress said, hey, no more of these gangster type weapons. no more submachine guns that aren't controlled and regulated. so, now we're going to control and regulate them. and, of course, the forerunner of the atf was the bureau of prohibition, we all know the history of elliott ness. they're given the responsibilities to enforce those laws and that's been the way america has been for years and then a ban on civilian ownership in 1986 for machine guns not already possessed. so, this is a two clever way by -- that video you just showed of the feed is the tell all right there that the supreme court is wrong. look at that shooter, i can tell you his finger is not manually going back and forth -- >> that's the key. >> that's the key. because -- >> let's go to that video. it is important that we do that. it is the single pull of the trigger. >> he's not moving his trigger finger. i'm not talking about -- not that one, but the one where the gun is actually firing. because the other one, there is no explosion, so you can't see it clearly. but when he's firing the gun, it is the explosion of the cartridge, that's it right there. just run that thing. the explosion of that cartridge is what makes the gun go back and fire again. so, we can argue how they interpret it, but here is the bottom line, they're dead wrong and they're dead wrong for america. i would just say this, quickly, jose, this argument that the atf director can interpret the law. look, i was a law enforcement officer for 36 years, you interpret the law every day, all day, when you make a traffic stop, you interpret the law. was the guy careless driving? was he reckless driving? you have to interpret the law. every lawyer interprets the law all day, every judge does as well. if you say a state trooper can't interpret the law and he was careless driving, he has to call in and get a judge to decide that. you can't have a country like that. and the atf, this is the only item that they decide on. they get shipped all kinds of -- i don't know the numbers, but scores and hundreds of gun add-on devices and all kinds of things that they technically have to look at and rule on and say that is not a firearm, that is a firearm, that's not a machin