The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday (June 14th) that the federal ban on “bump stocks” in the United States is invalid. This device allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. The ban was implemented as a restriction by the Trump administration.
In the case of Garland v. Cargill, the Supreme Court justices ruled 6-3 that the federal ban on bump stocks is not lawful. The ruling stated that bump stocks do not fall under the legal definition of a “machine gun” in the US Code.
The ban was put in place following the mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas in 2017, which resulted in 60 deaths and nearly 500 injuries. President Biden defended the ban, stating that the decision “strikes down an important gun safety regulation.”
Biden emphasized the need to take action to save lives, calling on Congress to ban bump stocks and pass an assault weapons ban. He expressed a willingness to sign such legislation immediately.
President Trump is set to challenge Biden in the upcoming US election on November 5th. Following the ruling, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign stated that the court’s decision should be respected, highlighting Trump as a strong advocate for gun rights.
Michael Cargill, the plaintiff in the Garland v. Cargill case, is a retired military veteran who now manages a gun store in Austin, Texas. He challenged the ban after being forced to surrender two bump stocks following the Trump administration’s implementation of the ban.
The core issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of the National Firearms Act by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), defining a machine gun as a weapon that can automatically fire one or more rounds with a single function of the trigger.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “We conclude that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it does not ‘automatically’ shoot more than one round with a single function of the trigger.”
Justice Thomas further argued that even if it could, it still would not fire automatically, and therefore, the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by categorizing bump stocks as machine guns.
Federal law prohibits the sale or possession of machine guns, with penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Bump stocks work by utilizing the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to move the firearm back and forth, enabling rapid successive shots by repeatedly “bumping” the shooter’s fingers against the trigger.
Officials have pointed out the necessity of such regulations in the US due to the prevalence of gun violence incidents to ensure public safety.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion, warned of the “deadly consequences” of the ruling, criticizing the majority for adopting a narrow definition of machine guns that allows gun users and manufacturers to circumvent the law.
Sotomayor highlighted the majority justices’ focus on internal firearm mechanisms using “six diagrams and an animation” to reach their conclusion, whereas she considered a firearm equipped with a bump stock to be plainly a machine gun.
She analogized, saying, “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.”
In the Las Vegas shooting, the gunman utilized weapons equipped with bump stocks to fire thousands of rounds within 10 minutes, resulting in 60 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. This prompted the ATF to reconsider its position and include bump stocks under the National Firearms Act.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, stated that the 2017 Las Vegas shooting did not alter the law or its meaning. He argued that the incident demonstrated that a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock could produce similarly deadly effects as a machine gun, reinforcing the need for legislative amendments.
Alito added, “Now that the situation is clear, Congress can take action.”
Mark Chenoweth, President of the New Civil Liberties Alliance representing Cargill, welcomed the decision, asserting that regulations passed by Congress did not prohibit bump stocks, and the ATF lacked the authority to unilaterally ban them.
John Feinblatt, President of the gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety, called for Congress to ban bump stocks, emphasizing their potential to fire rapidly and cause harm similar to machine guns, underscoring the Supreme Court’s decision to allow these lethal devices back into the market.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans also supported Cargill’s stance last year.
There is a deep divide in the US on how to address gun violence. President Biden and many Democrats advocate for stricter gun control measures, while Republicans oppose such measures. However, in this case, it was a Republican administration that implemented the regulation.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will make a ruling on another gun rights case at the end of June. In November last year, the justices heard arguments on the legality of a federal law that makes it a crime for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders to possess firearms.