SCOTUS Reverses Bump Stock Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, devices enabling rapid semi-automatic rifle fire, as reported by Reuters. This 6-3 conservative majority decision found the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority in classifying them as machine guns, according to the Court's official opinion.

www.reuters.com reported, The ATF had implemented the ban in 2019 following a devastating 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, interpreting existing federal law to include bump stocks, The New York Times reported. The agency argued that these accessories effectively convert semi-automatic weapons into illegal machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

However, the Supreme Court determined that the ATF’s reclassification lacked statutory basis, stating that a bump stock does not mechanically alter a rifle to fire more than one shot per trigger pull. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized this technical distinction, as detailed in the Court's published decision.

www.reuters.com noted, This ruling represents a significant setback for gun control advocates who championed the ban as a crucial safety measure, as noted by CNN. They argue that bump stocks transform legal firearms into weapons capable of extreme lethality, a concern frequently voiced by advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety.

Conversely, gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have hailed the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights, asserting that the ATF overstepped its regulatory powers. They maintain that the agency's previous interpretation was an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority, according to statements released by the NRA.

www.reuters.com reported, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the majority's interpretation would have "deadly consequences," as reported by The Associated Press. She argued that the ruling ignores the practical effect of bump stocks on a weapon's firing rate and the intent of the law.

The decision immediately invalidates the federal ban, allowing for the legal sale and possession of bump stocks nationwide, according to legal experts interviewed by Politico. This could prompt renewed legislative action from Congress or individual states seeking to impose their own restrictions on these devices.

• www.reuters.com noted, Background of the Ban: The federal ban on bump stocks was enacted by the ATF in March 2019, four years after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting where a gunman used rifles equipped with bump stocks to kill 60 people and injure hundreds. The Trump administration, under pressure to respond to the tragedy, directed the Justice Department to clarify that bump stocks fell under the federal definition of "machine guns," as detailed by The Washington Post.

• Legal Definition of "Machine Gun": Central to the case was the interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which defines a "machine gun" as any weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The ATF's 2019 rule argued that a bump stock effectively enables a semi-automatic rifle to meet this definition by allowing continuous firing with a single, sustained trigger pull, a point contested by gun rights advocates, according to SCOTUSblog.

• www.reuters.com reported, Technical Function of Bump Stocks: Bump stocks utilize the recoil of a semi-automatic rifle to rapidly reset the trigger against the shooter's stationary finger, allowing for a continuous firing motion without multiple individual trigger pulls. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, focused on the mechanical aspect, stating that the device does not change the internal mechanism of the firearm to fire automatically, as explained in the Court's technical analysis.

• Implications for Regulatory Authority: This ruling has broader implications for the power of federal agencies, particularly the ATF, to interpret and enforce existing laws. Critics of the ban argued that the ATF overstepped its authority by effectively creating new law through regulation, a concern echoed by the Court's conservative majority. Legal scholars suggest this decision reinforces limits on agency discretion, as discussed by legal analysts on NPR.

• www.reuters.com noted, Reactions from Stakeholders: Gun control organizations expressed profound disappointment, with Brady United stating the decision "puts countless lives at risk" and undermines efforts to prevent gun violence. Conversely, gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America celebrated the ruling, calling it a "win for gun owners" and a check on executive overreach, according to their respective press releases issued post-ruling.

• Potential State-Level Responses: While the federal ban is now invalidated, several states already have their own laws prohibiting bump stocks, including California, New York, and Massachusetts. This Supreme Court decision does not affect these state-level prohibitions. However, states without existing bans may now face renewed pressure from gun control advocates to enact their own legislation, as observed by state legislative trackers.

• www.reuters.com reported, Congressional Action and Future Legislation: The ruling could reignite calls for Congress to pass explicit legislation banning bump stocks, an action that has previously stalled due to political divisions. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have reacted, with some urging legislative action to close what they perceive as a loophole, while others defend the Court's interpretation of current law, according to reports from Congressional correspondents.