Furthermore, Sotomayor argued, Congress sought to limit the availability of machine guns

“because they eliminated the need for a person to continuously fire by rapidly pulling the trigger himself.” She said that a bump stock “serves that function,” enabling a shooter to fire up to 400–800 rounds per minute.”The majority eviscerates Congress’s regulation of machineguns and enables gun users and manufacturers to circumvent federal law by casting aside the statute’s ordinary meaning both at the time of its enactment and today,” the speaker said.

Thomas disputed Sotomayor’s claim that the majority’s ruling makes it excessively simple to circumvent the machine gun ban. “Merely because a law draws a line more narrowly than one of its conceivable statutory purposes might suggest does not mean that it is useless,” he said, especially considering that the ATF did not view the law as prohibiting bump stocks until 2018.

This term, the justices will hear arguments in two matters involving weapons and gun rights, one of which is the bump-stock rule controversy. A federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone who is the target of a domestic violence restraining order was challenged in court in November. In the case of United States v. Rahimi, the justices have not yet rendered a ruling.

The justices decided to consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s attempts to control so-called “ghost guns” as their next gun-related issue. A ruling on that matter is anticipated to be rendered in October of 2025.