The Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case on the legality of the federal ban on “bump stocks,” an accessory that enables semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly, resembling automatic fire. This hearing, scheduled for Wednesday, revisits the regulation imposed by the Trump administration following the devastating Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017, where the gunman utilized bump stock-equipped firearms to kill 58 attendees at a country music festival.
Since the Supreme Court’s initial refusal to block the regulation in 2019, its composition has shifted further to the right, notably with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, after the passing of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. This change in the court’s makeup has brought renewed attention to the case, which now centers on Michael Cargill, a Texas-based gun owner and licensed dealer. Cargill, who surrendered his two bump stocks following the ban’s implementation, has challenged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to enforce this prohibition, arguing that the agency overstepped its legal bounds.
Also Read- New York City Medical School Announces Tuition-Free Education Following $1 Billion Donation
Bump stocks function by leveraging the recoil energy from a trigger pull, allowing the user to fire several hundred rounds quickly with what the government describes as “a single motion.” Despite the complexity of mastering bump stock use, as highlighted by Cargill’s legal team, the debate over their regulation has intensified, with initial support from gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association waning over time.
The controversy surrounding bump stocks underscores a broader public safety concern, as evidenced by the Las Vegas tragedy. Advocates for gun restrictions, such as Eric Tirschwell from Everytown for Gun Safety, emphasize the potential for bump stocks to escalate the lethality of mass shootings. However, this case does not directly challenge the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms but rather questions the government’s authority to classify bump stocks under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was originally intended to regulate machine guns.
The legal definition of a machine gun, which was expanded in the 1968 Gun Control Act to include accessories that convert weapons into machine guns, is at the heart of this dispute. The ATF’s interpretation that bump stocks fall within this definition has been contested, with plaintiffs arguing for a narrower understanding and against deference to the federal agency’s judgment.
Also Read- Sivers Semiconductors at MWC 2024: Pioneering the Future of mmWave Solutions
This legal battle has seen divided opinions among lower courts, with both the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the ban, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld it. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications, potentially affecting bump stock sales and ownership across the United States.
Currently, bump stocks remain classified as machine guns and are therefore banned nationwide, despite favorable court rulings in certain states. Jeremiah Cottle, the inventor of bump stocks, has cautiously resumed sales in states under the jurisdiction of the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts but awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling for further action. Meanwhile, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, bump stocks are already banned in 18 states, and Congress has the power to enact nationwide legislation.
This case emerges against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on gun rights, including the 2022 ruling affirming the right to carry handguns outside the home. However, the court has also shown reluctance to dismantle long-standing gun laws, as seen in a case involving domestic violence and firearm possession. The outcome of the bump stock case will not only clarify the scope of federal regulatory authority but also potentially set a precedent for future debates on gun control and Second Amendment rights.
