In a Big Decision, Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Ban on Bump Stocks
In a landmark decision on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal ban on bump stocks, a controversial gun accessory that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rate similar to fully automatic weapons.
The 6-3 ruling dismantled a regulation enacted during the Trump administration following the devastating 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, which resulted in 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries.
The conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, concluded that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns.
“A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does,” Thomas wrote.
He emphasized that the device does not allow a rifle to fire more than one shot per trigger function, a key aspect of the legal definition of a machine gun.
The ban, which had made possession of bump stocks a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison, was challenged by Michael Cargill, a gun store owner from Texas.
Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to the government following the ban and subsequently sued, arguing that the regulation went beyond the statutory limits set by Congress. The Supreme Court’s decision upheld his position, asserting that legislative changes to firearm regulations should come from Congress, not executive agencies.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a fervent dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices.
She criticized the ruling for undermining efforts to control gun violence, stating that the decision “will have deadly consequences.”
Sotomayor argued that bump stocks enable firearms to operate as machine guns, thus fitting within the scope of existing laws intended to regulate such weapons.
President Joe Biden denounced the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a setback for public safety.
“Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation,” he said, urging Congress to enact a new ban on bump stocks and other assault weapons.
However, given the current political climate, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding a slim majority in the Senate, the prospects for such legislation are uncertain.
The ruling has sparked a divided response. Gun control advocates, including groups like Brady United and Everytown for Gun Safety, expressed outrage, warning that the decision endangers lives by making it easier for mass shooters to access high-fire-rate weapons. Conversely, gun rights supporters, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), celebrated the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights and a necessary check on executive overreach.
This case, Garland v. Cargill, revisits the broader issue of firearm regulation in the United States, highlighting the ongoing debate over the balance between individual gun rights and public safety.
The court’s ruling reaffirms the interpretation that semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not meet the legal definition of machine guns, thus placing the onus on Congress to address any regulatory gaps through new legislation.
As the nation grapples with the implications of this decision, the debate over gun control and the regulation of firearm accessories like bump stocks remains as contentious as ever.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the complexities of interpreting and applying gun laws in a society deeply divided over the issue of gun rights versus gun control.