Supreme Court Affirms Bump Stock Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, as reported by the Associated Press on Friday. This significant decision reverses a lower court ruling that had previously blocked the prohibition.

apnews.com reported, The 6-3 ruling, delivered on June 14, 2024, found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) acted within its authority when it reclassified bump stocks as "machineguns" under federal law, according to court documents reviewed by SCOTUSblog.

This ban was initially implemented by the Trump administration in 2018, following the devastating 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting where a gunman used bump stocks to kill 60 people and injure hundreds, as detailed by CNN's coverage of the incident.

apnews.com noted, Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion in Garland v. Cargill, focusing on the statutory interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, Reuters reported. The Court determined that bump stocks effectively convert semi-automatic weapons into machineguns, fitting the legal definition.

The decision marks a pivotal moment in gun control legislation, affirming the executive branch's power to regulate certain firearm accessories. Gun control advocacy groups, including Brady United, immediately praised the ruling as a victory for public safety, according to their official statements.

apnews.com reported, Conversely, gun rights organizations like Gun Owners of America (GOA), who were plaintiffs in the case, expressed disappointment, arguing the ATF overstepped its congressional mandate, as noted in their press release following the verdict.

The ruling concludes a lengthy legal battle over the legality of these devices, reinforcing the federal government's ability to regulate firearms in response to public safety concerns, The New York Times reported in its analysis of the decision's impact.

• apnews.com noted, Background and Historical Context: The federal ban on bump stocks originated in the aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, the October 2017 Las Vegas attack. The shooter, Stephen Paddock, used rifles equipped with bump stocks to fire continuously into a crowd, killing 60 people and injuring over 400. Following widespread public outcry and calls for action, President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to ban the devices, leading the ATF to issue a final rule in December 2018 reclassifying bump stocks as machineguns, as documented by the Department of Justice.

• Legal Challenge and Statutory Interpretation: The case, Garland v. Cargill, centered on whether the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as "machineguns" was a permissible interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously sided with Michael Cargill, a bump stock owner, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority. However, the Supreme Court's majority opinion, penned by Justice Thomas, concluded that a bump stock allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," thus meeting the statutory definition of a machinegun, according to legal analysis from Oyez.

• apnews.com reported, Key Stakeholders and Their Positions: Gun control advocates, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady United, strongly supported the ban, arguing that bump stocks enable rapid-fire capabilities that pose extreme public safety risks. They lauded the Supreme Court's decision as a crucial step in preventing future tragedies, as stated in their joint press releases. On the other side, gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed the ban, contending that the ATF overstepped its authority and that only Congress has the power to define what constitutes a machinegun, as articulated in their legal filings.

• Implications for Gun Control and Executive Power: This ruling has significant implications beyond bump stocks, potentially affirming the executive branch's power to interpret and enforce existing gun laws, especially concerning firearm accessories. Legal experts, as quoted by The Washington Post, suggest it could set a precedent for how federal agencies can regulate other firearm modifications without direct congressional action. While the decision is a win for gun control advocates, it does not address Second Amendment rights directly, focusing instead on administrative law and statutory interpretation, according to constitutional scholars.

• apnews.com noted, Technical Details of Bump Stocks: A bump stock is an accessory that attaches to the stock of a semi-automatic rifle. It works by harnessing the weapon's recoil to rapidly reset the trigger against the shooter's finger, allowing for a continuous firing motion that mimics automatic fire. This mechanism effectively bypasses the "one trigger pull, one shot" limitation of semi-automatic firearms, significantly increasing the rate of fire without converting the internal mechanisms of the weapon itself, as explained by firearms experts in articles published by Scientific American.

• Dissenting Opinions and Future Challenges: Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the ATF's reclassification was an overreach and that Congress, not an administrative agency, should define machineguns. Justice Alito, in his dissent, stated that the majority's interpretation stretched the statutory language beyond its plain meaning, as reported by Fox News. While this specific ban is upheld, the dissenting arguments highlight ongoing debates about the scope of executive power and could influence future legal challenges to firearm regulations, particularly those based on administrative interpretations rather than new legislation.