Gun Rights
Supreme Court rules ban on gun bump stocks is unlawful
The ban was imposed by the Trump administration after the accessory was used during the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas
The United States Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, ruling that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority when it classified these devices as machine guns. The 6-3 decision, which fell along ideological lines, marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over gun control and the limits of administrative power.
Bump stocks are attachments for semi-automatic rifles that enable the weapons to fire at a rate similar to fully automatic firearms. They replace the standard stock and harness the rifle's recoil to "bump" the trigger against the shooter's finger, allowing for rapid firing. The devices gained national attention following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a gunman used bump stock-equipped rifles to kill 60 people and injure hundreds more in a matter of minutes.
In the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy, the Trump administration directed the ATF to ban bump stocks, leading to a 2018 rule that required owners to destroy or surrender the devices. The ban was challenged by Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner from Austin, Texas, who argued that the ATF lacked the authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns under federal law.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that the ATF's interpretation of the National Firearms Act was incorrect. The Act defines a machine gun as a weapon capable of firing more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger." According to Thomas, a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet this definition because it still requires the shooter to pull the trigger for each shot, albeit at a much faster rate.
The decision underscores the Supreme Court's skepticism of administrative agencies' power to interpret and enforce laws without clear congressional authorization. Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, noted that the ruling aligns with the conservative justices' broader efforts to limit the reach of federal agencies. "This case highlights the Supreme Court's ongoing efforts to scale back the authority of administrative agencies," Winkler said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, warned that the majority's decision could have "deadly consequences" by making it more difficult for the government to regulate firearms effectively. She argued that the ruling undermines efforts to prevent mass shootings and other forms of gun violence. "The majority's opinion complicates the government's ability to keep machine guns out of the hands of individuals like the Las Vegas shooter," Sotomayor wrote.
The ruling has drawn sharp reactions from both sides of the gun control debate. Gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), praised the decision as a victory for individual freedoms and a check on executive overreach. Randy Kozuch, the executive director of the NRA, stated, "The Supreme Court has properly restrained executive branch agencies to their role of enforcing, and not making, the law."
Conversely, gun control groups expressed deep concern over the ruling. Organizations like Brady: United Against Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety criticized the decision, arguing that it endangers public safety by allowing the proliferation of devices that can turn semi-automatic rifles into near-machine guns. Everytown called on Congress to pass legislation banning bump stocks, urging lawmakers to "right this deadly wrong."
President Joe Biden also weighed in, reiterating his administration's commitment to addressing gun violence. "We know thoughts and prayers are not enough," Biden said in a statement. "I call on Congress to ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban, and take additional action to save lives — send me a bill and I will sign it immediately."
The case, Garland v. Cargill, has broader implications beyond the specific issue of bump stocks. It reflects the Supreme Court's current approach to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, particularly regarding the authority of federal agencies. The decision is likely to influence future cases involving administrative interpretations of federal law, potentially reshaping the landscape of regulatory power in the United States.
As the nation grapples with the implications of this ruling, the debate over gun control and the role of federal agencies in enforcing it is set to continue. The Supreme Court's decision has reopened a contentious political fight, with both sides preparing for the next round in the ongoing battle over America's gun laws.