Supreme Court Upholds Bump Stock Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal ban on bump stocks, devices enabling semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, in a 6-3 decision. This ruling reverses a lower court's decision and maintains a key restriction implemented by the Trump administration, according to The Associated Press.

apnews.com reported, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, which concluded that bump stocks effectively convert semi-automatic weapons into illegal "machine guns" under federal law. This interpretation aligns with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reclassification, Reuters reported.

The ban was initially enacted by the ATF in 2019 following the devastating 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where a gunman used bump stocks to accelerate his rifles' firing rate. The high court's decision ensures this regulation remains in effect, a move praised by gun control advocates.

apnews.com noted, Gun rights proponents, including Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner who challenged the ban, argued the ATF overstepped its authority. They contended that bump stocks do not fundamentally alter a rifle's mechanical operation to qualify as a machine gun, as noted by The New York Times.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, asserted that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by redefining "machine gun" without congressional action. He argued that the majority's interpretation could lead to an expansion of executive power, according to CNN's analysis.

apnews.com reported, The ruling marks a significant victory for gun control advocates who have long sought to regulate such devices, while drawing criticism from Second Amendment defenders. The Washington Post reported that the decision underscores the Court's focus on statutory interpretation in this case.

This legal battle, known as Garland v. Cargill, centered on the precise definition of a "machine gun" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Court's majority emphasized that their decision was based on the text of the statute, not policy preferences.

• The federal ban on bump stocks originated in the aftermath of the horrific October 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where Stephen Paddock killed 60 people and injured hundreds more. Paddock had equipped multiple semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks, which allowed him to fire at a rate comparable to automatic weapons, as detailed by The Associated Press. This tragedy spurred widespread calls for stricter gun regulations.
• Historically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had previously determined that bump stocks did not convert semi-automatic rifles into machine guns. However, under the Trump administration, the agency reversed its stance in 2018, issuing a final rule in 2019 that reclassified bump stocks as machine guns. This reclassification made their possession, sale, and manufacture illegal, Reuters confirmed.
• The legal challenge, led by Michael Cargill, centered on whether the ATF had the authority to unilaterally redefine "machine gun" under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Cargill argued that a bump stock does not enable a weapon to fire "automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger," which is the statutory definition of a machine gun, according to court documents reviewed by The New York Times.
• Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, clarified that the Court's decision was a matter of statutory interpretation, not Second Amendment rights. He explained that a bump stock allows a shooter to fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger, as the device uses the weapon's recoil to repeatedly "bump" the trigger against the shooter's stationary finger, thus meeting the legal definition of a machine gun, CNN reported.
• Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, penned a strong dissent, arguing that the majority's interpretation stretched the statutory definition of a machine gun beyond its plain meaning. He contended that each shot fired with a bump stock still requires a separate "function of the trigger," even if facilitated by the device, and that Congress, not the ATF, should amend the law if it wishes to ban bump stocks, The Washington Post noted.
• The ruling elicited predictable reactions from opposing sides of the gun debate. Gun control advocacy groups like Brady United and Everytown for Gun Safety lauded the decision as a crucial step for public safety, preventing devices designed for mass casualties from being legally available. Conversely, gun rights organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association condemned the ruling, viewing it as an infringement on Second Amendment rights and an overreach of executive agency power, as reported by various news outlets.
• This Supreme Court decision could have implications for the scope of executive agency power in interpreting existing statutes, particularly concerning firearms. While the Court emphasized statutory interpretation, the dissent raised concerns about allowing agencies to change long-standing definitions. Future legislative efforts to regulate other firearm accessories or types of weapons might be influenced by this ruling's focus on precise statutory language, according to legal analysts.
• Technically, a bump stock is a shoulder stock that replaces a rifle's standard stock, allowing the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly. By harnessing the recoil energy, it enables the shooter to maintain a constant forward pressure on the rifle, causing the trigger to repeatedly "bump" against the trigger finger. This mechanism significantly increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon, mimicking fully automatic fire without technically altering the internal mechanics of the firearm, as explained by firearms experts.