right now on "ana cabrera reports," decision watch. at any moment the supreme court is set to release at least one critical ruling with dozens of cases still undecided and really

barely any time left in the term. looming decisions on trump's immunity claims, gun rights and a host of other issues. plus, a birthday reunion. the gop embraing trump in his first visit to capitol hill since the january 6th riot, but will his comments from yesterday come back to bite him? and later, a chance for peace or a nonstarter, president putin outlining his conditions for peace talks with ukraine. is it a genuine offer? it is 10:00 eastern, and i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. we begin at the supreme court where in just moments we will get at least one more decision from the nine justices after a big decision yesterday on abortion medication. there are still 26 undecided cases this term. let's go right to nbc news washington correspondent yamiche alcindor outside the court for us, yamiche, what do we know? what are we waiting on? >> reporter: well, good morning, ana, we are waiting on 26 cases. we have a number of cases

dealing with a number of big issues, significant issues including guns, abortion, also the big case that we're also waiting on is former president trump's claim to absolute immunity dealing with his official acts as president, which is related to his charges against him trying to overturn the 2020 election. so right now we know we're going to get some decisions. we just don't know exactly whether or not it's the significant ones we're waiting on. we're definitely listening in. we have a producer in the room right now, and i'm going to continue to watch my producer here on the side who will be letting me know if we get a significant case. we are waiting for a significant case. yesterday we got that mifepristone case that said that abortion medication is going to remain accessible as is. we're going to continue to see what else is out there. >> we'll check back as we get more information. thank you for setting the stage, yamiche alcindor. today is donald trump's 78th birthday, and he's celebrated with a blowout party and speech tonight in palm beach. it comes after congressional republicans went all out yesterday for trump's first

return to capitol hill since that january 6th riot bringing him a cake and candles, singing happy birthday and reaffirming their loyalty to him as head of their party. joining us now, nbc's dasha burns, former adviser to speaker john boehner, mara galess pea, democratic strategist richard goods by, what do we know about how that meeting went with lawmakers on the hill? >> ana, the message that was hammered home at just about every turn by the former president and republicans on the hill was unity. he said in his meetings with lawmakers that he didn't want republicans fighting with one another. at one point even asking marjorie taylor green, the congresswoman who tried to oust house speaker mike johnson not so long ago saying are you being nice to mike. he also talked about 2024 and committed himself to helping those that are in tough races saying he'd be willing to do things like tele town halls to

help boost the candidates that are in those tough to win districts. he also talked about abortion, ana, and of course we had that significant supreme court decision yesterday. he didn't mention the supreme court decision specifically, but he did tell lawmakers that republicans needed to talk about abortion, quote, correctly to emphasize exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother saying it's an important issue and one that republicans are vulnerable on. it was also a striking moment given the people in the room, particularly in his meeting with republican senators. you had mitch mcconnell in that room, ana, who hadn't been in a room with the former president in years. you'll recall that after january 6th mcconnell said that the former president was both morally and practically responsible for the events of that day. you also had mitt romney in that room, so not necessarily all people that have been on the same page as former president trump, but i want you to take a listen to some of the reaction we got from yesterday. >> well, they may have amnesia

about what happened that day, but the fact is it was an assault. >> it was a pep rally. >> it was a pep rally? >> for president trump, yeah. >> we had a good meeting. >> yeah, we shook hands a few times. he took questions from the audience, and it was an entirely positive session. >> reporter: ana, he also made headlines in milwaukee, allegedly calling the city horrible according to a source in the room. the source also telling us that nobody in the room disagreed with that. the trump campaign pushed back calling that allegation bs, but certainly something that seems to have struck a chord in milwaukee, which is the site of the convention coming up next month, ana. >> not to mention what a key swing state wisconsin is this november. thank you, dasha burns for all that reporting. so richard, we just heard from nancy pelosi, we heard from some republicans there in that clip

reacting to trump's return to the hill. what's your big takeaway? >> a few things. one, again, he's returning to the scene of the crime as nancy pelosi said. again, the very police that guarded him yesterday, his people beat them to a pulp and he calls them hostages and political prisoners. that's one. two, they still are tripping all over themselves on this abortion issue. it makes no sense skpshs they're losing both sides. the hardcore antiabortion people aren't satisfied with all these exceptions and you can see in the polls the people who are the single issue voters on abortion now outweigh the single issue who are against by three to one. that's unprecedented and that spread is only getting worse, and i love the quote from one of the house members who said this was like a drunk uncle at a family reunion. and i just think that's kind of what these republicans in swing districts, he said something

about larry hogan who disavowed trump's embrace of him. they're tripping all over themselves. one final thing. he keeps saying he's ahead in the polls. he's not. if you look at likely voter polls today and over the past week, there are several national polls where biden had been tied, maybe behind a point or two. he's up two, four points over where he was as of the time of those convictions. so things are not trending well for donald trump on his 78th birthday. >> coming out of that meeting a lot of the messaging was all around unity, maura, and we saw some his more boisterous gop critics in that room, people like mitt romney, bill cassidy and of course mitch mcconnell who called the meeting entirely positive. well, liz cheney, former congresswoman, former republican leader in the house reacting with this post. trump and his collaborators will be defeated and history will remember the shame of people like leader mcconnell who

enabled them. so is the republican party unified behind trump, or are there cracks in the foundation? >> there's certainly cracks in the foundation, and we've seen it play out over the last really eight years. if you think back to the fact that when trump was running, there was so much division there about things he said and did and then in 2016 i know as a staffer, it was kind of my waking up to what do i need to react to today? what do i have to respond to. what did i miss while i was sleeping? it was every day of getting asked how are you going to respond to what trump said today. i think what you saw yesterday was we have to try and look ahead to policy wins, if the republicans do win, they need to be prepared for what that would be and what their legislative agenda would be. so unified in that sense is a positive, it's what you expect. the republican party just as the democrat party would want to have a unified plan moving forward. i do think it's interesting whether it's negligence, ignorance or whatever it is, about what happened on january 6th. the former president has failed to take responsibility, to acknowledge what happened that day, and those members on a personal level have to decide

what's their threshold for keeping their job, for working on behalf of their constituents or for their own integrity of what they're willing to put up with in order to get the job done. >> apparently for mitch mcconnell who called trump practically and morally responsible for january 6th, he's made the choice that he's better falling in line. >> i think to say it like that, i don't disagree with you, but i, again, what are they supposed to do? it's not as easy as it seems to stand out on the sidelines like liz cheney is now in a position to do. i agree with her, but i'm saying as far as these members have to decide they're in this position. they're representing the 700,000 people in their district so their best chance of getting something done is working within their conference to navigate. do they all need to go out there and be cheerleaders for the former president, no, they do not, but they need to get their work done. for a congress that has abysmal approval ratings, it's important that they try and get some sort of policy wins. >> hold on, stand with me because i want to go back to our

supreme court reporter, yamiche alcindor who is right outside. we just got a new decision, and it has to deal with gun rights. yamiche, fill us in. >> reporter: that's right. so in 2018 donald trump, former president donald trump at the time told the atf that they could regulate bump stocks, which is this issue -- this mechanism that allows guns to fire like machine guns, that they could regulate that and in some ways outlaw that. the supreme court is now saying that that was -- that that needs to be done away with, that bump stocks cannot be regulated as machine guns. this is a 6-3 decision. this is taking away a gun regulation that was endorsed and passed under donald trump's presidency. this is big news here in terms of we were watching a gun -- a number of gun decisions, but in this case it's garland v. cargill. bump stocks is this mechanism that allows guns to fire more rounds than usual, that that cannot be regulated as a machine gun. that's taking away that

regulation. >> and do we know the spread on this, forgive me if you said it right off the top, and what is the reasoning? >> reporter: so right now it's that it's -- it's a 6-3 decision along party lines that of course is the conservative majority, so six conservative justices are saying that bump stocks cannot be regulated as machine guns and three of the liberal justices are disagreeing with them here. it's saying that the atf exceeded its authority when regulating bump stocks and that bump stocks cannot be regulated in the way it would have been regulated under this 2018 rule that was passed by the atf under donald trump's presidency. >> we'll let you continue to read in on this decision. i want to bring in leah litman, assistant law professor at the university of michigan. she's also the co-host of the podcast "strict scrutiny." leah, give me your reaction to this decision. >> i think it's a really shocking decision. as yamiche was saying, this regulation that classified bump stocks was actually created by the trump administration, so for people yesterday who were thinking that the supreme

court's medication abortion ruling was a sign of a moderate institutionalist court, now the supreme court is further to the right on gun regulations than the trump administration was. the trump administration classified bump stocks as a type of machine gun and congress has prohibited and severely restricted machine guns. bump stocks are devices that actually modify a semiautomatic rifle so that they can fire roughly 800 rounds per minute with a single pull of a trigger and continuous pressure. the bump stock device is what the shooter in the deadliest shooting in the united states in las vegas used and for that reason, the trump administration classified bump stocks as machine guns. as justice sotomayor noted in her dissent for the three democratic appointees, bump stocks walk, talk, and quack like a duck, and therefore, they are machine guns and congress classiied them as such. >> to be clear, does this decision clarify the definition

of a machine gun? >> yes, so what the court says is that a machine gun as congress has prohibited it, is something that automates the firing of a rifle with merely one touch. and because a bump stock requires a shooter to maintain pressure on the rifle after the initial push, the majority says that's not actually a machine gun. and i think that that is problematic and really upends several previous devices that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms has restricted as machine guns including earlier precursors of bump stocks that modified rifles to be able to fire many more bullets but not quite as many as the bump stock does. potentially those restrictions are now called into question by this decision. >> i want to bring in a professor of constitutional law at nyu law school. kenji, are you surprised by this decision? >> i am shocked by it, but i'm not surprised by it, insofar as

i think we heard the oral arguments, the kinds of skepticism that are being articulated in the opinion today. largely, you know, i agree with what my colleague leah litman just described. the only add i would have to her excellent analysis of the case would be that there's a big question of who decides. this is not a classic second amendment case. it's really about who gets to decide, you know, what kinds of restrictions are placed, and -- but here it was the bureau of, you know, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms that interpreted a federal statute to extend to the prohibition of bump stocks. what the justices are saying in this opinion is it has to be congress that steps in and does that. it's not an administrive agency that can make that interpretation. this is a continuing assault on the administrative state. we we see other courses that deal with the chevron document and other kinds of assaults on the administraive state.

this is -- that kind of ability of expert agencies to make these kinds of determinations and instead throwing this back to a dysfunctional congress to legislate on this issue. >> it is justice thomas who wrote this majority opinion, again, 6-3 was the decision. i'll note that during oral arguments, thomas was one of the justices who talked about the intention of congress's initial machine gun ban back when that was enacted, and he pointed to that it was during prohibition in response to, quote, significant damage from machine guns, carnage, people dying, et cetera. it sounds like they're defining it based on the mechanics of a gun or these accessories versus that intention, and the idea of the potential carnage that could come from something like a bump stock. is that your understanding, kenji? >> yeah, although it's hard to -- i haven't metabolized the entire decision yet, but that obviously means that the court has some explaining to do.

as leah was saying, this interpretation from the trump administration of the national firearms act came in the wake of one of the deadliest shootings that we've had in this country in las vegas that left 60 individuals dead because an individual holed himself up in a hotel room and used, you know, these semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks in order to kill individuals. so it's really hard to say that the impact of this is not going to be similar to the impact that animated the machine gun ban of the national firearms act in the first place. i think that we need to actually delve more deeply into this. if the oral arguments are any guide, it actually goes into something very, very technical where one of the things that seemed to bother justices on the conservative side was the idea that an individual didn't need a bump stock if they were truly expert in the handling of firearms in order to get a semiautomatic weapon to fire with one pull, and so, you know, the response on the part of a

deputy solicitor general fletcher in that context is that you really actually need to have expertise in order to do that. the bump stock actually automates that for individuals and so you don't need to have any expertise to get one pull of a trigger, a single function of a trigger to lead to massive carnage. >> kenji, stand by, i want to go back to yamiche with more details on this decision as she's been reading the opinion. bring it to us, yamiche. >> reporter: well, it's really interesting because we see gun regulation in this country being so politicized, but the fact that this 2018 ban on bump stocks was passed under former president trump really tells you that this was sort of coming in an era, and there was a lot of momentum because there was a 2017 shooting in las vegas where bump stocks were used which led to the atf banning bump stocks because it was categorized as a machine gun. this really potentially is setting up a precedent for the scope of the agency authority in interpreting this, and it could really impact how the atf is able to regulate other

accessories. now, as you said, clarence thomas wrote the majority opinion. justice sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion. you see a classic ideological guide here on the court, it again, sort of underscores the 6-3 majority that republicans were able to get, and it also just shows here that this is a court that is yet again saying in some ways that this is -- that this is something that they cannot regulate in the way that it was regulated here. i also think it's interesting because we're waiting for another gun case as we think about this that's related to domestic violence abusers, and there was a man that was suing saying that he should not -- he should have access to his guns even though he was convicted of domestic violence violations. that is connected to a 2022 ruling by the supreme court that showed that you had a right to bear arms outside of your house. we're still waiting for that decision. it just tells you in this case this is a court that's saying that the atf exceeded its authority in this case, and it could have implications for how the atf impacts and regulates other gun accessories in the future, ana. >> and let me just read a little

bit from the majority opinion, again, written by justice clarence thomas. he writes, this case asks whether a bump stock, an accessory for an automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly engage the trigger and therefore achieve a high rate of fire converts the rifle into a machine gun. we hold that it does not and, therefore, affirm, and he goes on to talk about the mechanics of a machine gun and that automatic fire, but as yamiche points out, this was an atf regulation that was put in place during the trump administration following the las vegas concert shooting that left nearly 60 people dead, hundreds of other people injured, and that was the kind of carnage that came from using these bump stocks. nbc's jonathan allen is joining us now. jonathan, second amendment decision in an election year, how significant could this be? >> that's a great question, ana. on the political score, i think

we're going to have to wait to see, but i think everybody knows where the two candidates stand on gun control, but i want to back up for a minute here. i covered this debate over bump stocks in 2017, and donald trump had a choice. when i talked to republican members of congress at the time, they said if he push that had through congress, if he said let's make a law banning bump stocks, republicans with would follow him. whatever he said they would have passed it. the other option he had was to go to the atf knowing that any regulation that went through the atf would be subject to possible overturning by the supreme court. in fact, the national rifle association encouraged trump to go through this regulatory are process and said at the time that the nra believed in opposition to what clarence thomas has just said, that bump stocks actually converted nonautomatic weapons into automatic weapons. this was the strategy of gun rights advocates at the time in the wake of that incredibly

horrible las vegas mass shooting. they decided to go to the regulatory route and chose instead not to do the legislative route that the supreme court now suggested they should do if they want to ban bump stocks. >> and so john, i'm just trying to think about the message this ruling sends, and what is the takeaway for the american people? >> the takeaway for the american people is that the supreme court has decided that the esoteric question of whether a bump stock actually converts a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic weapon or if it's simply a tool that kind of does that is more important than protecting the number of lives that would be lost when, you know, 7 or 800 people could be shot in a minute. i don't know how else to put it, ana. as the supreme court weighed these questions, they went to the -- again, that very esoteric question instead of the one about how many people a mass

shooter could kill in an instant. >> where does this issue fall along party lines? what's trump going to say about this? >> there are very few politicians in the country who support the idea of fully automatic weapons being legal. they will -- some of them will basically use this as cover, the bump stock question. we have not yet heard from former president trump about where he stands on the reversal of his regulation, but we know that he has been very supportive of his own supreme court picks when it suits him, and i suspect that you're not going to hear him say anything that is pro high temperature gun control. he may disagree with this particular decision. again, we know where the two candidates stand on guns. >> jonathan, thank you. please stay with me. i also want to turn to richard good steen who's here. he's a democratic strategist, also senior adviser to the brady gun safety organization. what do you see as the political implications here? >> this result was donald trump's doing just like dobbs was donald trump's doing.

he could say whatever he wants about abortion. we are now seeing state after state after state rule out abortion because of donald trump, and we're seeing now going to be more guns, more deadly guns on the streets because donald trump put on the supreme court people who slavishly do whatever the nra wants and, you know, there were very few politicians who are going to stand up. we've got some politicians who are on the supreme court and they're the ones who are basically saying, you know, whatever it is that the gun rights people want is what they're going to rule on, and as he mentioned, there's another gun decision still to come out, but there's been this steady stream of ways in which this supreme court with donald trump's three nominees have down the line done what the gun crowd wants. and i think -- just like abortion, i think this gun issue is a cleaving issue in this election that people just don't feel safe. they don't feel safe sending

their kids to school and one party is standing up for doing something about that. and trump said that at the nra convention, we want you to have as many guns as you think you want. >> now, but we just heard what jonathan allen was saying, and this is this particular aspect of second amendment rights seems to have at least bipartisan support that the atf should be able to regulate bump stocks, that there shouldn't be machine gun type devices out there, and so do you see potential bipartisan action on this in congress? >> i bet we will see soon enough, just like we saw the republicans say no to ivf, in the context of the abortion debate, i guarantee you chuck schumer and democrats in the house will try to tee up something that will legislate on this bump stock issue and we will see where the republicans are. my forecast is that they will find some excuse, just like they did on ivf, to kind of vote it down and kind of make some explanation for why they did

that because they're too loyal to the antiabortion people and they're too loyal to the pro-gun crowd. >> okay, thank you so much, richard goodstein, i want to bring in emma brown, executive director of giffords. thank you, emma, for joining us. how big of a setback is this for your efforts for gun violence prevention? >> well, so let's start with the basic fact that the vast majority of americans don't support bump stocks, right? we have seen that a ban on buffer stocks has 85% support across the board, and i think it's really important to talk about what happened today in really plain terms. you know, what happened today is that the supreme court has essentially legalized machine guns in this country, and if that sounds insane and unbelievable, it's because it is. a bump stock is a device that converts a semiautomatic rifle where you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire into a rifle where you can just hold down the trigger and you can fire 400 to 800 rounds a

minute, and as folks have pointed out on the show this morning, you know, bump stocks were used by the las vegas shooter to kill 60 people and hit 400 others in a span of just 11 minutes. and after that shooting, we banned bump stocks in this country. you know, we took an action that was critical for protecting public safety, and today you've seen the supreme court roll that back. >> so what do you do now? >> well, what we need to see is congressional action, right? as i said, this is not a controversial issue. we're talking about automatic weapons. we're talking about military grade weapons, right? you know, machine guns were developed for the american military. they have been outlawed in this country for decades, i think that's important to know. you know, we have been regulating machine guns since the 1930s. these are military style weapons. what we need to see is bipartisan congressional action to ban bump stocks immediately, and i think if you're thinking about this fall and you're thinking about the election, this is an incredibly impactful moment where americans will see

very clearly who supports public safety and who supports the gun lobby and the gun manufacturers. >> so this obviously takes away the federal regulation that had been established by the atf, but what about state level laws. do you see a path forward in that direction? >> we do, we do, and i will say, i'm the executive director of giffords. over the last ten years we have been able to pass over 600 state gun safety laws, which have strengthened gun safety in a variety of places across this country, and so, yes, we see that in the absence of federal action, in the absence of congress taking action that would protect the american people, there's a lot that states can do. i'm sitting in chicago this morning, illinois has a ban on bump stocks, right? every state is able to ban bump stocks if it chose to. if state leadership, state governments are watching the supreme court decision this morning and they're horrified, there is something that we can do, but more broadly we need to

see bipartisan congressional action immediately to ban bump stocks in the house and in the senate, which is something that the vast majority of the american people, in addition -- you know, including republicans have been really clear that they want. >> emma, can you talk to us a little bit more about the kind of damage a gun with bump stocks can incur? >> yeah, so i want to just reference sotomayor's dissent this morning said, you know, she said when i see bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, i call that bird a duck. she is making the point that a bump stock modifies a semiautomatic rifle into a gun that fires 400 to 800 rounds a minute, and is essentially a machine gun. you know, now the supreme court can quibble on, you know, the grammar and the syntax and the exact definition of what congress was going for in the 1930s when we first started regulating machine guns, but the reality is that a bump stock allows from the shooter's perspective you to just hold

down -- hold down the trigger and fire 400 to 800 rounds a minute, and i think that if americans are looking for an example of the harm that bump stocks can cause, you don't need to look any further than the las vegas shooting, right? a concert where, you know, there were 500 people shot by a shooter that had bump stocks, was using bump stocks in 11 minutes, and i think, you know, after that point there was -- president trump at that point, you know, banned bump stocks. the nra was initially in favor of regulation on bump stocks because, you know, again, this isn't controversial. we're not even talking about assault weapons here. we're talking about machine guns, automatic weapons that have no place on our streets or in our schools, you know, or in the hands of anybody but frankly the united states military. >> let me read to you reaction we just got from the trump campaign, emma, and i quote, the court has spoken and their decision should be respected. president trump has been and always will be a fierce defender of americans' second amendment

rights, and he is proud to be endorsed by the nra during a time when our border is open to terrorists and criminals and migrant crime is on the rise. that i should note is not founded in the facts. the right to keep and bear arms has never been more critical, and joe biden wants to take that away from law-abiding americans. president trump won't let that happen. what's your reaction to that? >> well, i think that that speaks for itself, right? you just heard that donald trump believes that we should essentially have machine guns in this country and that, you know, the court's action to put them back on the streets of this country is not a problem. you know, look, i think joe biden is the most pro-gun safety president in this country's history. he has taken more action on this issue than any of his predecessors. in comparison, donald trump got up, you know, a couple weeks ago at an nra convention and he bragged that he did nothing on guns in his presidency. those were his words. i think if americans are watching the supreme court decision this morning, if parents are watching and they are worried and they are scared,

you know, because of what has happened today, you need to look at these two candidates and see the differences between them because they are crystal clear, and vote for the person who is going to keep us safe ultimately and that's joe biden. >> emma brown, thank you so much for taking the time. yamiche alcindor has been reading into the dissent in this case, again, penned by justice sotomayor. what does she say? >> it's really important because your guests just pointed out part of what justice sotomayor is saying, and it's really a vigorous dissent written by her. she wrote in part, when i see a duck -- when i see a bird that walks like a duck, i call that bird a duck. when you see a gun that looks like a machine gun in her opinion, it should be called a machine gun. she went on to say this is not a hard case. all the evidence points to the same interpretation, a bump stock equipped semiautomatic rifle is a machine gun because with a single pull of the trigger a shooter can fire continuous shots without a human

input beyond maintaining pressure forward. i also want to point out, as we're focusing on this dissent that justice alito specifically talked about the 2017 las vegas shooting. he authored his own concurring opinion, though he was of course in the 6-3, the six conservative justices who voted to do away with this bump stock ban, he wanted to write about the las vegas shooting. i want to read part of what he said. he said 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 amend a law does not change the law's meaning. he went on to say congress can amend the law and perhaps would have done so already if atf had stuck with its earlier interpretation. now the situation is clear, congress can act. so what you hear here is really two completely different views of these bump stocks. you have justice sotomayor who really sounds angry and passionate in her dissent saying that this is really putting american lives in danger and really that this should be

regulate like a machine gun, and then you have the conservative justices saying this is not a machine gun and even though this horrible shooting happened in 2017 that doesn't change our interpretation of the law. so really a very clear difference here in the justices' opinions and really a lot of passion, i think, when you read these opinions. they sort of come off the paper and it shows you this was really a vigorous debate among them. >> yamiche, thank you, please keep reading for us. let me read again from justice sotomayor's dissent. today's decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. the majority's artificially narrow definition hamstrings the government's efforts to keep machine guns from gunmen like the las vegas shooter. i respectfully dissent. i want to bring in msnbc contributor and retired atf special agent in charge, jim cavanaugh. jim, these are the types of weapons law enforcement is facing frm what does this mean for atf agents? does this put them in danger? >> it puts all our law

enforcement officers in danger, and it puts all our social securities in danger, ana. it's nonsensical the majority decision here. if you look at the graphic on your screen, you can see that stock, the bump stock, and you can see the space there. and the 1934 law that defined machine guns, the national firearms act. it said a machine gun is a weapon that by a single function of the trigger fires more than two rounds, and what it really meant was that, you know, in a semiautomatic gun, the shooter holds the firearm and pulls with their finger each shot. that's a semiautomatic firearm. but what a machine gun or a sub -- these are really sub machine guns, classified as sub machine guns because they can be carried by a human, you pull the trigger and hold it and the gun empties the magazine, could be 30 rounds, 100 rounds, 500 rounds.

it just keeps shooting. when you put your finger like that, it just keeps shooting because the explosive power of the cartridge rams the slide back and sends -- and it goes forward with a spring. in a semiautomatic gun, the slide goes back, but the hammer's held back. so that's the difference. the explosive power of the gun makes the movement, and what the justices missed here in the majority is that the explosive power of the gun, the explosion of the cartridge is what sends the slide back and lets it go. on a bump stock when you hold the trigger back and lean your shoulder into it, it just keeps shooting. your finger does not keep pulling. it does not keep pulling. you can't shoot 500 rounds that fast. you hold the trigger back, a single function of the trigger, and you hold it still and the explosive action, so it's a bad ruling. it's a bad technical ruling.

it's bad for america. it's silliness, it's nonsensical. i don't care how deep they want to think they are in the law. it's idiotic. it really is a dumb decision in my view. >> i appreciate -- >> they got so deep in the weeds, so deep in the weeds that they're going to hurt america. >> i really do appreciate your expertise and helping us all understand just how lethal these bump stocks are and how they function for people who have never used them or had any exposure to them. i think to your point about how sometimes common sense just doesn't seem to align with these decisions. justice alito sort of explains that in the decision, his concurrence that he writes. he says the horrible shooting spree in las vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. that event demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with the bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machine gun,

and it thus strengthened the case for amending. an event that highlights the need to amend the law does not itself change the law's meaning. so leah litman, if the atf can't regulate this, who can? >> there's some possibility that congress could. that is congress could write a law that prohibits bump stocks in addition to the law that prohibits machine guns, but i do want to note that there is still a possibility that this court would strike down that statute as violative of the second amendment. this was not a second amendment case. that is, it did no present the question about whether it is permissible under the constitution to restrict bump stocks. rather the question was merely does the law congress has written, does that law prohibit bump stocks as it's written. and during the oral argument in this case, justice brett kavanaugh specifically noted that the people challenging the bump stock rule had not relied

on or invoked the second amendment. we know donald trump from his comments is saying this decision needs to be respected and is proud of appointing justices who will adopt rather extreme interpretations of the second amendment as a judge on the court of appeals, brett kavanaugh had said congress cannot restrict assault rifles. so while this decision suggests congress could write a statute that prohibits bump stocks, there's no guarantee that this court would say it would be constitutional to do so. >> leah, thank you. richard goodstein still with us, and i also want to bring in kristy greenberg, msnbc legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, and dave aronberg here with me at the table as well, state attorney for palm beach county. thanks so much for being here. let me start with you, dave, and just weigh in on your thoughts. >> this is the latest step in the supreme court's dismantling of the administrative state. it's another way to call the deep state that trump use. they've been doing this for environmental laws. you have the atf, unelected bureaucrats who are banning bump

stocks. the supreme court's saying if you want to do it, you got to do it through congress. of course we know that congress is unable to do anything the nra doesn't want it to do. >> in fact, this bump stock regulation was really the only thing it seemed people agreed with on both sides of the aisle and it was the only big action that's happened in years on the issue of gun violence. >> sadly, the only way you get a consensus is after a tragedy. the largest mass shooting in american history, and even the trump administration supported this, although they wouldn't go so far as to get congress to do it. so sadly, the only way you're going to do anything on this from here on out is after another horrific tragedy, and that is a tragedy in itself. >> kristy, weigh in. >> so if you use a bump stock, and you put that on a rifle, it can then fire between 400 to 800 rounds per minute. that is an astonishing -- i mean, just think about that, how much carnage could result from that. we know from the las vegas shooting, but these are

extraordinary numbers. so this idea that the majority opinion is quibbling about the single function of a trigger and what that mechanics of that movement is, like just take a step back. what congress was really trying to do here and to your point, using common sense, what they were trying to do when they banned machine guns was to ban this lethal spray of bullets that could kill people, and so this opinion just is devoid of any common sense. textualism matters, yes, you have to read the statute, but you also have to look to common sense and what is the intent? what was congress trying to do? and they were clearly trying to ban these weapons that can have such lethal consequences, and i think when the justices are more result driven, then they say, we'll look to the text. but then when they actually want a different result, then they think, oh, well, let's look at the intent. it's textualism when it suits them. and so i think that's what's really frustrating about an opinion like this. >> here's what i don't understand, though, this was a 6-3 divide, but who does this

benefit? >> i mean, it seems like it's benefitting, you know, the nra and people who believe that there should be really no restrictions on their ability to own guns in whatever form. it's just unclear to me why someone who enjoys potentially hunting or has some reason that they want to use guns, why would you need a bump stock? what is the basis for that? why should that be legal? that's the question that the majority really doesn't deal with because there is no good answer to that. >> how do you make sense of it, richard? >> i don't. to dave's point, you know, it will take another tragedy. this is the tragedy. it's the tragedy because these things can now proliferate and until congress acts and this will call the question. in 2018 when trump, the administration proposed this regulation, they had majorities in the house and senate and the white house and they did this. they could in theory have pushed

something through congress, but i bet you they didn't because the nra and the nra supplicants in the house and senate tried to talk them out of it. they probably knew at some level that a supreme court might ultimately do what they did today. again, we'll see in short order, i bet, what congress does do. this will put the speaker of the house in the cross hairs, so to speak because i bet you he's very, very much a pro-nra guy, and yet, the swing members of congress in these districts where they've had this proliferation of gun violence or the threat of it, they're going to say speaker johnson, we need to do this, and we'll see whether he has the nerve to stand up to the nra or not. because if he does, they aren't used to having anybody in congress stand up to them. they're afraid it will be kind of a slippery slope. that's what will make it interesting. >> there's this other gun rights case we're still waiting on,

dave, this is u.s. versus rahini dealing with domestic violence suspects or offenders who have restraining orders against them and whether they should have access to a gun. does today's opinion give you any clues as to where that one could be headed. >> i'm concerned about that as well. whenever you see a majority opinion written by justice thomas, somewhere an angel dies. it's going to be some radical opinion. >> although justice thomas, as i pointed out during oral arguments, kind of nodded at this idea of what was the original intent of the machine gun ban? >> right, that's right. but they have such a pro-second amendment view, they have such a pro-nra view, what makes us believe they're going to stand up for the law. here they use the most narrow excuse to rule against banning these weapons. they said essentially bump stocks are just like machine guns but there's a slight difference. that's all it took for them to undo all this and put us at risk. i'm concerned how it's going to

affect the next case. >> there are no more decisions being issued today, so this is the only real big one that we were waiting on among others that came out today. i want to go now to nbc's monica alba who covers the white house. she's been traveling with the president who's in italy right now who is taking part in the g-7 summit, and i understand, monica, you have reaction from biden, president biden? >> from the biden campaign, ana, because the president is tied up in these current sessions at the g-7 summit, i do anticipate that the white house will likely want to weigh in on this issue since it's one that they have talked about repeatedly. in fact, just earlier this week, president biden spoke at a gun violence prevention event in washington, d.c. very clearly, very broadly talking about where he stands on this issue. but notably, it's the biden re-election campaign that is reacting to this first, and they're putting this in very political terms.

they are very clearly -- and i'm going to read to you from this statement -- trying to talk about this as something that they are trying to very clearly put into the context of the supreme court justices that were appointed by former president trump. so according to the biden campaign's communications director, michael tyler, he says weapons of war have no place on the streets of america, but trump's justices have decided the gun lobby is more important than the safety of our kids and our communities. and this statement goes on to essentially say that if americans are looking for the candidate the biden campaign argues that cares about the gun violence crisis in this country, there is only one person in this race, michael tyler the communications director says, that has been running on a proven record of successfully taking on the gun lobby, and there's only one candidate running on a promise to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. that's president biden. so of course during the course

of this administration, president biden has been very clear on that, after repeated mass shootings that we have seen in this country tragically time and time again, you've seen president biden come out and say that he's proud that there was a bipartisan effort to pass some legislation when it comes to gun violence, but that he wants to do more, and he has always put that in the frame of wanting to ban assault weapons, but he has talked about bump stocks specifically, and the biden administration has always argued in the context of these legal cases and ongoing challenges that they believe firmly that the bump stocks would fall under the category of a machine gun. and they have argued that back when it was also being debated in the federal courts before it got to the supreme court. and there's just a last portion of this statement that i'll read to you, ana, from the biden campaign that, again, pivots this fully back to the president's general election opponent donald trump, and it says through his words, his actions and his supreme court

nominees, donald trump makes it clear every day that he doesn't care if the american people live or die at the hands of weapons of war on our streets. that is what the biden campaign communications director is saying, and he concludes by saying, trump only cares about the safety, security, and freedom of one person, donald trump. and this strikes me, ana, just on these back-to-back days where we have had these consequential rulings on key issues that voters will be considering and discussing ahead of the election that that is how the biden campaign and re-election effort obviously are going to try to approach this. they're going to put this in this context of these larger issues, when we were talking about medication abortion, they made this about this clear position that the president and his administration has had now for some time and then today you're seeing that with this very specific bump stock ruling, putting it into a larger context about where the president, the vice president, and everybody on down when they travel to one of

these horrific mass shootings and try to help a grieving community, where they make this larger argument. and the president will likely say when he does speak to this he put into place the first ever office of gun violence prevention, which tries to treat some of these mass shootings like natural disasters, responding to them differently. again, because of the just sheer number of horrific ones that we've seen in recent years, ana. >> of course we will await additional supreme court decisions this term in the next couple of weeks, everything on presidential immunity, another gun rights case, another abortion-related issue. thank you very much, monica, we'll have more from you in just a moment on the president's g-7 summit, plans and efforts there. i want to thank everyone who has joined us on this breaking news. we're also following the major moves on the global stage with president biden meeting with world leaders in italy. also this morning, vladimir putin laying out his conditions for peace in ukraine, but is his plan a nonstarter?

stay with us. we'll be right back. ay with us we'll be right back. d my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with all the money i saved i thought i'd buy stilts. being so tall definitely has its advantages. oh whoa. here you go, kiddo. thanks. hi honey ready to go? yup. there it is, there it is... ahhh...here we go. i guess it also has some disadvantages. yes it does. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty, liberty.♪ hi, i'm eileen. i live in vancouver, washington and i write mystery novels. as i was writing, i found that i just wasn't sharp and that doesn't work when you're writing a mystery and i knew i needed to do something so i started taking prevagen. i realized that i was much more clear, much sharper. i was remembering the details that i was supposed to. prevagen keeps my brain working right. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription.

you know what's brilliant? boring. think about it. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it.

♪ that colonoscopy for getting screened ♪ ♪ is why i'm delaying ♪ ♪ i heard i had a choice ♪ ♪ i know the name, that's what i'm saying ♪ -cologuard®? -cologuard. cologuard! -screen for colon cancer. -at home, like you want. -you the man! -actually, he's a box. cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way ♪

shop etsy for thoughtful pieces made by real people to bring a little something extra to the ordinary. for cologuard. find items that add wow to walls and make you fall in love with your family room again. when you want one-of-a-kind pieces to refresh your home... etsy has it. nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer.

(aaron) i own a lot of businesses... talk to a healthcare provider so i wear a lot of hats. my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. we are following breaking news out of moscow this morning. russian president vladimir putin outlining conditions for peace talks to end its war with ukraine. but it would require ukraine to pull its troops entirely out of the four territories russia illegally annexed in 2022. so since this invasion began. president zelenskyy has repeatedly said they won't give

up any ground and i want to bring in nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel in dnipro, ukraine. this new proposal comes after new promises of aid at the g7 summit. does he know ukraine would refuse these conditions? >> reporter: he knows ukraine will refuse these conditions. but it is not clear that he's talking to ukraine and not clear that he's talking to president biden either. it seems that he is trying to put down a marker and perhaps send a message to donald trump that this is what vladimir putin is willing to accept. this is his baseline condition. this is russia's cost for ending the war. and it is important that people understand this is much more than russia controls right now. russia has been fighting for nearly two and a half years in this country. russia first tried to take over all of ukraine, with

international support, with american help. the ukrainian military managed to push back, beat back russian troops to an area along the russian border. now, the fighting is taking place primarily in these four provinces that vladimir putin is talking about. he wants -- and he said in order to achieve peace that ukraine needs to give up all of these provinces, he's to demilitarize them, he's to pull out its troops and hand over this territory to russia. that includes cities that russia does not control, that are still held by ukraine, large strategic territory that is still in ukrainian hands. so, for this current government it is -- it is an absurd position because russia's asking ukrainian government to give up territory it holds, give up territory that it has fought battles to regain, why would it

possibly give that up? the army would mutiny in this country if suddenly president zelenskyy got on the phone and said give up all the territory you worked so hard to reconquer. but it seems that vladimir putin is trying to present himself as a man who is open for a peace deal and it seems like he's trying to talk to a future u.s. administration because he knows this is -- this proposal is not a proposal that ukraine currently or the biden administration currently would not even consider. >> just quickly, if you will, richard, has putin responded directly to what's been happening at the g7? >> he certainly has. and i think this is partly that response. so, what happened yesterday at the g7 was quite important for ukraine and quite important in the history of this war. something more, i think, than ukrainians were even anticipating, more than

president zelenskyy was anticipating. first of all, they got $50 billion in loans. now, that just on its own is a big deal, but the source of these funds is quite significant. it is $50 billion, based on the interest of seized russian funds. and president putin responded to that, calling it a theft of russian assets. on the surface, he's not entirely wrong. this is russian money that was frozen and now that frozen money is being used, the interest on the frozen money is being used to support ukraine. he said that that is -- that is theft, and that there will be consequences, and then he went on to say, if you really want peace, here is the price that ukraine should just hand over these four provinces, now, where it is fighting tooth and nail the day after they received promises of more support, just give them over to russia, including towns and cities that russia doesn't even hold.

>> richard engel, thank you for covering it all for us. meanwhile, let me take everybody 3,000 miles west. in italy, where president biden and the other world leaders are meeting, discussing a war in ukraine among a number of other critical issues, let's go back to nbc's monica alba in italy. going into this summit, the white house's primary focus has been on bolstering the support for ukraine. what is the reaction there to this news that russia is open to peace talks? >> well, certainly there is some skepticism here, ana, and i was pointed to what the president said in his remarks yesterday, standing alongside president zelenskyy that really spoke to the critical nature of the sovereign territory within ukraine and how delicate that is and really obviously with the implication that some of the conditions that president putin is referring to are simply not realistic in terms of how this could progress with the war. so i expect the white house and other national security advisers

will get more specific and have more of a reaction. but there are these larger discussions, of course, about seeking an end to the war and having those peace talks and it is vice president kamala harris who will be attending and representing the administration during that conference this weekend since president biden won't be attending that himself. >> we got about a minute here. i want to get you on the president's meeting with pope francis, the first time a pope participated in the g7. what does it mean to have that face to face with the pope? >> reporter: it is incredibly profound for the president and when you speak to people close to him, this is a relationship that he has had for over a decade, it was then vice president biden who went to the inauguration of pope francis in 2013 and when pope francis came to the united states in 2015, he actually met with president biden and some of his family members, just a few months after

beau biden had died of brain cancer. so the two men have actually kept in touch. they have exchanged written messages, i'm told, in recent years. this is always a moment for the president that is incredibly meaningful. it is deeply personal. and given the events of this week, with hunter biden's conviction on those felony gun charges, and just the emotional toll clearly on the president, and the first family, i think it will have added meaning for the president to be able to have that private audience with the pope here in southern italy. >> monica alba, thank you for your reporting and that does it for us this busy hour. i'll be back at 1:00 p.m. eastern today in for my colleague chris jansing. until then, i'm ana cabrera, reporting in new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now. good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart. just in the last hour, major decision from the supreme court striking down a federal ban on bump stocks enacted by the trump