WASHINGTON A rule that was implemented in the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting and which classified a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock attachment as a machine gun—which is normally illegal under federal law—was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion narrows the executive branch’s already constrained authority to combat gun violence. Strong supporter of Second Amendment gun rights, Thomas claimed in a letter that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives went beyond what was required of it by law when it forbade the sale and possession of bump stocks, which were significantly different from machine guns.
When a bump stock is added to a semiautomatic rifle, nothing changes, according to Thomas. “The shooter must let go of the trigger between each shot and give it time to reset before pulling the trigger again.”
Garland v. Cargill was decided 6-3, breaking the court’s long-standing ideological consensus.
The senior liberal member of the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, authored the dissent, claiming that the ruling returns “bump stocks to civilian hands.”
She 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 call that a machinegun, just like Congress does.
Gun safety setback
The White House criticized the choice.
“Today’s ruling invalidates a crucial gun safety legislation,” stated President Joe Biden in a statement. “This widespread destruction shouldn’t have to be a source of fear for Americans.”
Biden urged Congress to outlaw assault weapons and bump stocks, but since Republicans control the House and Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, any legislation pertaining to guns is likely to fail.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement, “Bump stocks have played a devastating role in many of the horrific mass shootings in our country, but sadly it’s no surprise to see the Supreme Court roll back this necessary public safety rule as they push their out of touch extreme agenda.”
Trump-era policy
This case is related to a rule that was implemented during the Trump administration in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting. At a music festival, a shooter opened fire on a crowd with rifles equipped with bump stocks, killing 58 people that evening and two more who later passed away from their wounds. Over 500 others were injured.
The ATF published a rule the following year declaring that bump stocks are unlawful machine guns. To avoid facing criminal charges, anyone in possession of or owner of a bump stock was obliged to either destroy the material or turn it in to the agency.
After turning over two bump stocks to the ATF, Austin, Texas gun dealer Michael Cargill filed a federal court challenge to the regulation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with Cargill that the definition of a machine gun in a 1986 law does not apply to bump stocks because the rifles with the attachments do not fire multiple bullets “automatically” or “by a single function of the trigger.” However, a U.S. district court dismissed his case.
As per the law, a machine gun is any weapon that has the ability to shoot multiple shots automatically without the need for manual reloading, all with a single pull of the trigger.
The 5th Circuit’s ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by the Biden administration.
High court hearings: Bump stocks
The Biden administration claimed during oral arguments that bump stocks enable semiautomatic rifles to fire automatically with just one pull of the trigger, defending the Trump-era regulation.
Cargill’s attorneys contended that bump stocks are not automatically fired with a single pull, but rather are used by repeatedly pulling the trigger.
The decision will restrict the federal government’s “efforts to keep machineguns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter,” Sotomayor stated in her dissent.
In 2022, Thomas authored a significant gun decision that struck down a New York statute that prohibited open carry of a firearm absent a compelling need for protection. Although the court ruled in favor of the 14th Amendment, it also increased Second Amendment rights.
A federal statute that forbids the possession of firearms by someone who is the subject of a domestic violence protective order is being tested in court this session due to the 2022 ruling. We anticipate a decision this month.
