SCOTUS Strikes Down Ban on Bump Stocks

In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, in Garland v. Cargill, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an opinion striking down the Trump era ban on bump stocks. A copy of the opinion can be found here.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 defined a machine gun is “[a]ny weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

Following the killing or 60 people and wounding of at least 411 more at the Las Vegas Route 91 Harvest Festival in 2017 by a gunman who used 14 rifles outfitted with bump stocks, the ATF reconsidered whether bump stocks should be considered machine guns.

The ATF concluded that a bump stock allows a shooter to continuously fire a weapon “with a single pull of the trigger”, rendering it a machine gun and prohibited the sale, manufacture and possession of bump stocks.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, concluded that the ATF had exceed its authority by issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns.

Justice Thomas said that the ATF had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device by issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns. Justice Thomas wrote, “We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger”.

The opinion narrowly focused on the breath of the power of administrative agencies rather than the Second Amendment.

Several challenges had been made in federal court to the ATF’s rule-making following the massacre in Las Vegas. Two federal appellate courts upheld the ban, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) struck it down in Cargill.

Cargill lawfully purchased two bump stocks in April 2018 prior to the ban. He surrendered them once the ATF banned them. That same day he filed a lawsuit challenging the ATF rule in federal court in Texas.

The District Court and three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ban. In rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit bench, the ban was struck down. The Solicitor General appealed to the SCOTUS.

The Solicitor General argued before the SCOTUS that if the Fifth Circuit decision was affirmed “manufacturers within the Fifth Circuit will be able to make and sell bump stocks to individuals without background checks and without registering or serializing the devices.” The majority of the SCOTUS was unpersuaded.

Joining the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote in a separate opinion that the Las Vegas shooting supported changing the law to outlaw bump stocks like machine guns, but that a change in the law required legislative action by Congress rather than rule making by an administrative agency.

The dissenters vehemently disagreed with the majority. Justice Sotomayor wrote, “[w]hen I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck . . . A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *