SCOTUS Overturns Bump Stock Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority. This 6-3 decision, reported by the Associated Press, overturns a regulation enacted following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

apnews.com reported, The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, concluded that bump stocks do not transform semi-automatic rifles into machine guns under federal law. As detailed by The New York Times, the Court found the ATF’s reclassification of these devices to be an unlawful expansion of its regulatory power.

This ruling marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates, who had challenged the ban as an executive overreach. Conversely, it represents a considerable setback for gun control efforts, according to analysis from CNN, reigniting debates over firearm regulations.

apnews.com noted, The ban was implemented after a gunman used bump stocks during the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds. The Washington Post reported that the tragedy spurred widespread calls for stricter gun control measures, leading to the ATF's regulatory action.

The ATF had previously reinterpreted federal law, classifying bump stocks as machine guns due to their ability to enable rapid firing. This reinterpretation, as explained by NPR, allowed the agency to ban the devices without new legislation from Congress.

apnews.com reported, The three dissenting justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority’s interpretation ignored the practical effects of bump stocks. Reuters noted that the dissent emphasized the devices’ capacity to facilitate mass casualties, aligning with the original intent of machine gun prohibitions.

• Background Context and Origin of the Ban: The federal ban on bump stocks was initiated by the Trump administration in December 2018, following the horrific 2017 Las Vegas shooting where a gunman used the devices to fire over 1,000 rounds in minutes. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the ATF, under then-President Trump's directive, reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, making them illegal under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This executive action bypassed congressional legislation.

• apnews.com noted, The Legal Challenge and Case Details: The specific case before the Supreme Court was *Garland v. Cargill*, brought by Michael Cargill, a gun store owner who surrendered his bump stocks under protest. SCOTUSblog explained that Cargill challenged the ATF's rule, arguing that bump stocks do not meet the legal definition of a "machine gun" and that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by unilaterally changing the interpretation of a long-standing federal law without legislative input.

• Majority Opinion's Rationale: Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6-3 majority, stated that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire "automatically" by a "single function of the trigger." According to the Court's official opinion, as summarized by Fox News, the device merely harnesses recoil to allow a shooter to pull the trigger faster, but each shot still requires a separate trigger pull, thus not meeting the legal definition of a machine gun.

• apnews.com reported, Dissenting Arguments and Public Safety Concerns: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the majority's interpretation was "divorced from the realities of gun violence." She emphasized, as reported by The Guardian, that a bump stock allows a shooter to achieve a rate of fire comparable to a machine gun, effectively circumventing the intent of the law designed to regulate such rapid-fire weapons.

• Implications for Gun Control Efforts: This ruling significantly limits the ATF's ability to regulate firearms through reinterpretation of existing laws, potentially requiring new legislation for future bans. Gun control advocates, such as Brady United, expressed deep disappointment, stating to NBC News that the decision endangers public safety and undermines efforts to prevent mass shootings by allowing dangerous accessories back into circulation.

• apnews.com noted, Victory for Gun Rights Advocates: Gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), hailed the decision as a crucial win for constitutional rights and a check on executive overreach. The NRA, in a press release, asserted that the ruling reaffirms that federal agencies cannot unilaterally create new laws, emphasizing the importance of legislative action for such regulations.

• Potential Future Developments and Legislative Action: The decision could prompt renewed calls for Congress to pass legislation explicitly banning bump stocks, though such efforts have historically faced significant political hurdles due to partisan divisions. Legal experts, as noted by Politico, suggest that states may also pursue their own bans, potentially leading to a patchwork of regulations across the country, similar to other gun laws.

• apnews.com reported, Broader Impact on Regulatory Authority: Beyond bump stocks, this ruling could have broader implications for the regulatory power of federal agencies across various sectors. Legal scholars told The Associated Press that the Court's emphasis on strict textual interpretation could constrain agencies like the ATF from adapting existing laws to new technologies or evolving public safety concerns without explicit congressional authorization, potentially impacting future administrative actions.