Gun Bump Stock Ban of the Trump Era Rejected by the Supreme Court
These gadgets increase the rate of firing for semiautomatic weapons. Following one of the worst mass shootings in recent American history, which occurred at a concert in Las Vegas in 2017, they were outlawed.
A bump-stocked AR-15 allows a semiautomatic weapon to fire at a rate of fire that is comparable to that of a machine gun.
Bump stocks allow semiautomatic rifles to fire at rates that are comparable to machine guns. The Supreme Court overturned this restriction on Friday, eliminating one of the government’s rare gun control measures in response to a mass massacre.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the decision was divided based on ideologies. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had overreached itself in outlawing the device by establishing a regulation that categorised bump stocks as machine guns.
According to Justice Thomas, “we hold that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not a’machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.'” In order to explain how a bump stock functions, he provided a detailed description of a firearm’s internal workings along with many firing mechanism schematics.
After one of the deadliest shootings in recent American history—a gunman opened fire at a concert in Las Vegas in 2017—the Trump administration implemented the restriction.
In light of the fact that legislative attempts to curb gun violence have stagnated in Congress, the ruling was a strong rejection of one of the government’s limited initiatives. It also brought to light the court’s profound differences at a time when the nation struggles with horrific killings.
BUMP STOCKSBy allowing the weapon to move quickly back and forth, the attachment allows shooters to feel the recoil that their weapon produces when it shoots.
There was no challenge to the Second Amendment in the narrowly worded opinion. Instead, it’s just one of many instances this term that aim to weaken the authority of administrative bodies. Many of those opinions, including one that challenges the Chevron precedent, a landmark decision, have not yet been released by the court. But the bump stock ruling might indicate that conservative justices are on board with limiting the power of administrative agencies.
Along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
As the first of the term, Justice Sotomayor summarised her dissent from the bench—a technique reserved for vehement differences.
Justice Sotomayor wrote, “I call a bird a duck when I see it walking like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like a duck.” “With just one pull of the trigger, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can fire ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading.'” I respectfully disagree because I consider that to be a machine gun, just like Congress does.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 broadened this term to include items that can be used to turn a weapon into a machine gun, a category that is strictly regulated by the A.T.F.
By releasing the weapon’s ability to move quickly back and forth, a bump stock allows shooters to capture the energy from the kickback they experience when their weapon fires. Whether that constituted one pull of the gun or several, the justices were split on the issue.
Bump stocks were thought to be lawful until the Trump administration implemented its ban; an earlier reading of the statute found that they increased a gun’s speed by rapidly pulling the trigger by sliding the stock back and forth, rather than by “a single function of the trigger,” as required for a machine gun.
There was instant backlash after the decision. Democrats jumped on it, accusing the former president Donald J. Trump of being the deciding factor in the decision as well as his actions and court nominations.
Have a tip about a court story?Send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips if you have any information to contribute regarding the Supreme Court or other federal courts.
In a statement, President Biden pleaded with Congress to take action and outlaw the device. He declared, “Americans shouldn’t have to live in constant fear of this widespread destruction.”
In a statement, Mr. Trump stated that the ruling of the court ought to be honoured. In a speech on Friday night about gun rights, he made no mention of the ruling or his involvement in the prohibition, pledging instead to “fully uphold” the Second Amendment, which he described as “so important.”
Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner, is the person who is contesting the bump stock ban. He is sponsored by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, an advocacy group that receives funding from billionaire Charles Koch, who has historically favoured libertarian and conservative causes. The organization’s main focus is on what it views as improper administrative power uses.
Mr. Cargill claimed that he discovered the ruling when he checked the Supreme Court’s website while using his iPad to work in bed. He claimed to have fallen out of bed because he was so overwhelmed. “I was overjoyed,” he remarked.
He claimed that the decision represented a larger win for gun rights and that it would be simpler to oppose A.T.F. attempts to control firearms in the future.
According to Justice Thomas, the dissenting justices disregarded the machine gun definition set forth by Congress.
Justice Thomas stated, “A bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-quick trigger finger does.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred, stating that “there is simply no other way to read the statutory language,” and he substantially agreed with that view.
Justice Alito said, “The horrific shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning.” The different treatment of machine guns and bump stocks can be easily fixed.
Justice Sotomayor refuted those readings in her dissent.
Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Today, the court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands.” In order to achieve this, it ignores Congress’s definition of “machine gun” and adopts a term that deviates from the standard meaning of the statute and isn’t justified by context or intent.
She wrote, “This is not a hard case.” She went on to say that the majority view “needs six diagrams and an animation to decipher the meaning of the statutory text,” looking “to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull.”
In October 2017, the device’s deadly potential became shockingly apparent.
That month, a 64-year-old high-stakes gambler named Stephen Paddock opened fire on a country music festival from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel, killing 60 and wounding hundreds more. He shot more over 1,000 rounds of ammo in around 11 minutes. He had roughly twelve AR-15-type rifles in his armoury that were fitted with the gadget.
Political pressure to take action grew following the Parkland, Florida, school tragedy, which left many deadlocked. Trump promised to outlaw the gadget.
Before finally changing their minds, Justice Department representatives had previously stated that the executive branch could not outlaw bump stocks without congressional legislation. Bump stocks are prohibited, and selling or possessing one might result in jail time.
The possibility that the Supreme Court would weigh in grew due to divisions in the lower federal courts.
Following Mr. Cargill’s defiance of a federal trial judge in Texas, he filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After a split along ideological lines, the whole court—one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation—agreed with Mr. Cargill.
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a Bush appointee, wrote, “A simple reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semiautomatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machine gun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”
The three judges who dissented, who were all appointed by Democrats, claimed that the majority’s logic “legalised an instrument of mass murder.”
