'If it walks like a duck': Sotomayor offers blistering dissent on bump stock ruling

Welcome to NBC News Daily. This Friday we start with breaking news out of the Supreme Court where justices just issued a decision that could have major implications for gun laws nationwide. In a six three ruling, the court's conservative majority struck down a Trump era ban on bump stocks. That is an attachment for semi automatic rifles that makes them fire faster. Now the Trump administration imposed a ban on bump stocks after the 27 mass 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. A gunman used fire their arms equipped with these very bump stocks to attack a country music festival. Nearly 60 people were killed, hundreds of others injured. NBC News correspondent Julia Ainsley is live for us right outside the Supreme Court there in Washington. Julie, this is an important story, right? It's important for people to understand the implications of what this means. I know that the court ruled that a federal ban on bump stocks is unlawful. Walk us through what that means for everyday Americans. That's right. They're saying that the ATF went too far in 2018 when they, at the direction of the Trump administration, decided to ban bump stocks. At that time, anyone in possession of a bump stock could have been sent to jail. They were supposed to destroy or turn in their bump stocks because the ATF said that that counted as a machine gun and should be regulated as such under laws passed by Congress. But today and the majority opinion, Justice Thomas is saying a bump stock does not convert a semi automatic, a semi automatic rifle into a gun any more than a shooter with a lightning fast trigger finger does. Even with a bump stock, a semi automatic rifle will only fire one shot for every function of the trigger. The majority also pointing out that a shooter would have to put pressure on the front of the gun with his non trigger hand. But in the dissent, we saw Justice Sotomayor and others agreeing with her. The liberal justices saying, look, if it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck. Saying that really that this the conservative majority here is not following what they've said and so many other opinions by by trying to go with the what Congress has passed into law, that they are trying to go around that in order to limit the scope of this ATF regulation here. And they're worried that this could mean more gunmen like those in Las Vegas could get bump stocks into their hands. You know, Julia, we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on another major case involving guns. Talk about how this decision could potentially affect the average American. What are the big takeaways? And then that next case, that's right, that next case involves whether or not people who have been criminalized and convicted for domestic abuse should be able to have guns. This case, though, big term implications are we might see bump stocks back on shelves, people being able to buy a bump stock and use a gun, use that as a accessory on a gun to turn it into a weapon that could rapidly fire just like that shooter in Las Vegas did. What's interesting about this case is, again, it's not Second Amendment. That next case will, we'll re at least define the scope of the Second Amendment, whether or not it should be wider or more narrow. This case dealt with the executive branch and whether or not agencies have the power to put regulations like this in place. All right. NBC News correspondent Julia Ainsley live in DC for us. Julia, thank you so much.