They banned the sale of the little kiddie snowmobiles because there was a lead-acid battery that powered the electric start.
I recall a case from some years back, involving either a dirt bike or quad off road rig, where the govt agency was arguing (suing?) against their sale, because, while they seemed ok with the lead-acid battery, they were against the lead paint on the vehicle frame, because they were worried about children chewing on the paint and getting lead poisoning from that.
Mind you, you couldn't legally own or drive one unless you were 16 or older....
So, I'm guessing toddlers gnawing on the bike frames probably didn't happen often....but by gosh our regulators will ban the sale, just so we are safe...
Call it "mission creep" or what it is, bureaucratic overreach, creating regulations and situations that go beyond what the law actually prohibits because the "regulatory agency knows best" (and in more detail than the people who wrote and passed the law) is not in our best interests.
IF a given law does not sufficiently protect the public, then it is CONGRESS's responsibility to change the law. NOT some unelected agency bureaucrats writing (and enforcing) agency regulations.
Now with bump fire stocks, we have a bit of a unique and ironic situation. Examined and ruled on by an administration not noted for being friendly to gun owners rights, and found to not be a regulated item, then, a few years later, a different administration, one claiming to be "gun rights friendly" literally throws bump stocks under the (regulatory) bus and runs over them declaring them to be "machine guns" and therefore both regulated and not allowable for the general public to own. Because they had been criminally misused in a horrific mass murder event.
Now, the ATF has a long history of making rulings on items and later changing their ruling altering the legal status of certain items. SO, this is also a complicating factor, introducing not only did the agency have the legal authority to make the decision, but ALSO IF that decision was a correct one.
It appears that the administration needed something to placate the critics and decided banning bump stocks would be it.
If that turns out to actually be the case, and the decision was based entirely on appeasing the political critics of the administration, by reversing an earlier administration's ruling for political points, is that something we should support? (providing it is actually legal??)
SCOTUS will look at what it looks at, and rule as they see fit. What will be interesting to see is what the public (and govt) take away from the ruling will be.