The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday invalidated a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, ruling the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority in creating the regulation.
The 6-3 opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court’s three liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.
The court ruled a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” under federal law “because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.'”
“This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not,” Thomas wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court Building is seen, April 23, 2024, in Washington.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
More than 700,000 bump stocks were sold since 2009 after the Obama-era ATF approved the manufacture and sale. The bump stock, which is non-mechanical, can simulate an automatic weapon, firing 400-800 rounds per minute. A fully automatic weapon, such as a M16 rifle, shoots 700-950 rounds per minute.
The ATF ban on the accessory was created in the wake of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history when a gunman opened fire at Las Vegas music festival in 2017. Fifty-nine people were killed and hundreds of others wounded.
Sotomayor, in her dissent, noted the gunman in that tragedy used the device to create rapid fire.
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Sotomayor wrote. “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'”
Sotomayor added, “Today’s decision to reject that ordinary understanding will have deadly consequences. The majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the Government’s efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”
Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the nation’s largest gun control advocacy groups, decried the court’s decision as “putting millions at risk of harm.”
“This decision by the high court is dangerous and wrong. The ATF must be undeterred in continuing to aggressively enforce our nation’s gun laws,” Eric Tirschwell, the executive director of Everytown Law, said in a statement.
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has ruled to invalidate the Trump-era ban on bump stocks. This ruling marks a major victory for gun rights advocates and has sparked debates on the legality and regulation of firearms accessories.
Bump stocks are devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at a rapid pace, simulating automatic fire. The Trump administration had moved to ban bump stocks in the aftermath of the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, where the shooter used bump stocks to increase the rate of fire of his weapons. The ban was implemented through an executive order and classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns under federal law.
However, the legality of the ban was challenged by gun rights groups, who argued that the ban was an overreach of executive power and violated the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, ruling that the ban on bump stocks was not supported by existing federal law and that only Congress has the authority to regulate firearms accessories.
The decision to invalidate the ban on bump stocks has been met with mixed reactions. Gun control advocates have expressed disappointment, citing concerns about the potential for increased gun violence with the availability of bump stocks. On the other hand, gun rights advocates have hailed the ruling as a victory for individual freedoms and constitutional rights.
The ruling has also raised questions about the regulation of firearms accessories and the role of the government in addressing gun violence. Some argue that stricter regulations are needed to prevent tragedies like the Las Vegas shooting, while others believe that individual rights should not be infringed upon in the name of public safety.
Moving forward, it will be important for lawmakers to carefully consider the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling and work towards finding a balance between protecting public safety and upholding individual rights. The debate over gun control and the regulation of firearms accessories is likely to continue, as policymakers grapple with how best to address the complex issue of gun violence in America.
