The Supreme Court decided on Friday that the Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks—gun devices that speed up the firing of semiautomatic rifles—is illegal, dealing a setback to the Joe Biden administration.
In a 6-3 decision based on ideological differences, the court’s conservative majority determined that bump stocks could not lawfully be included in the nearly 100-year-old machine gun ban.
Following the Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017, which saw Stephen Paddock open fire on a country music festival using firearms modified with bump stocks, killing 58 people at first, the Trump administration put the ban in place. The item should be outlawed, as former President Donald Trump directly demanded.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that the device does not qualify as a “machinegun” under federal law for firearms.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a leftist, vigorously dissented from the decision.
She added, “I designate a bird as a duck when it behaves like a duck—walking, swimming, and quacking,” in allusion to the way semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks function like machine guns. In addition, Sotomayor made the uncommon move of summarizing her disagreement in court.
Not all states will have easy access to bump stocks, even if the federal ban remains in place. According to the nonprofit gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety, more than a dozen states have already outlawed them. Congress might also take action.
President Joe Biden promised to keep using “every instrument available to my administration to combat gun violence” in a statement.
“As we all know, thoughts and prayers are insufficient” Biden stated. “I demand that Congress pass a law banning bump stocks, outlaw assault weapons, and take other necessary measures to preserve lives. If you send me a bill, I’ll sign it right away.”
The stance was repeated by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, who said that “The only way to close this loophole permanently is through legislation.”
Proponents of gun control protested the decision and expressed fear that other state law bans would also be overturned.
According to Giffords Law Center legal director Esther Sanchez-Gomez, “Bump stocks have been known to unleash extreme violence and devastation” “The overwhelming majority of judges in the country today have sided with the gun lobby over the safety of the American people. This is a terrible decision.”
Despite having enforced the restriction, a campaign spokesperson for Trump claimed that she was not disappointed with the outcome, stating that the decision “should be respected” and highlighting his support for the right to bear arms.
Leading pro-gun rights organization National Rifle Association initially stated it would back a ban, but it later changed its mind. Saying on X that the court had “executive branch agencies were suitably limited to their enforcement of the law, not its creation,” the group applauded the decision made on Friday.
In her disapproval, Sotomayor brought up the shooting in Las Vegas.
“All he had to do was press the rifle forward and pull the trigger. The rest was handled by the bump stock,” she stated.
The decision, she stated, “hinders the government’s attempts to prevent shooters like the one in Las Vegas from obtaining machineguns.”
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged in a concurring opinion that a pistol with a bump stock is practically very comparable to a machine gun and that Congress should take action to outlaw the device.
“When paired with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle can be just as deadly as a machinegun,” he continued, illustrating how the “horrible shooting spree” in Las Vegas strengthened the case for legislative action.
In 2019, the Supreme Court decided not to strike down the rule. Since then, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett—a Trump appointee—has replaced liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away in 2020, thereby tilting the already conservative court even further to the right.
With a 6-3 majority, conservatives have supported gun rights in the past.
In reaction to gangster violence during Prohibition, the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934.
Michael Cargill, a registered dealer residing in Texas, filed the complaint. Prior to the ban’s implementation, Cargill possessed two bump stocks, which he later turned up to the authorities.
“More than five years ago, I made a vow to uphold the US Constitution even in the event that I was the sole plaintiff. I exactly that,” he declared in a statement in response to the decision.
With what the federal government refers firearm as “a single motion,” a user of a bump stock can fire up to hundreds of rounds using the recoil energy of a trigger stroke.
It’s a hard skill to learn, according to Cargill’s lawyers.
Following the Las Vegas shooting, several proponents of gun rights, such as the National Rifle Association, first supported then-President Donald Trump’s decision to ban bump stocks. However, they have since spoken out against it.
The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms is not at issue in this case. The opponents contend that the 1934 legislation does not give the government the right to outlaw bump stocks.
The ATF determined that bump stocks satisfy the 1968 Gun Control Act’s definition of “machine gun,” which includes attachments “for use in converting a weapon” into a machine gun.
The definition of a machine gun as a weapon that can fire several shots automatically “by a single function of the trigger” was a major point of contention throughout the court battle.
According to the authorities, the word alludes to the shooter’s actions because just one action is needed to fire several shots. According to Cargill’s attorneys, it alludes to what happens within the gun when the trigger is pulled. They contended that a bump stock is not a machine gun since the trigger must still be engaged for every shot.
In support of Cargill’s position, the Supreme Court’s Thomas ruled that a gun with a bump stock does not qualify as a machine gun since “It is limited to firing a single shot” with a single pull of the trigger.
“As a result, ATF went over its legal mandate when it issued a rule designating bump stocks as machineguns,” he stated.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati both ruled that the restriction was illegal, while lower courts were split on the matter.
In each case, the Biden administration filed an appeal, and proponents of gun rights challenged the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which maintained the prohibition.
In cases that directly confront the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has supported gun rights. One such decision from 2022 concluded that carrying a firearm outside the home is legal.
However, in a case heard in November concerning a restriction on the possession of firearms by those accused of domestic abuse, the court hinted that it might not go so far as to overturn some long-standing gun rules.