The U.S. Supreme Court is set to discuss a potential federal ban on bump stocks later this month, marking a significant moment for the court to address issues related to gun violence and Second Amendment rights.
The case in focus, Garland v. Cargill, arose after the Trump administration prohibited bump stocks in 2018. Bump stocks are attachments added to semiautomatic weapons to increase their firing speed, and they were classified as “machine guns,” which are prohibited under federal law.
In 2018, gun-rights groups filed a lawsuit, leading to an extensive legal battle that has brought the case to the Supreme Court for arguments scheduled next month. Trump’s ban on bump stocks was implemented through a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which operates under the Department of Justice. This action was largely a response to the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a shooter used a bump stock device to kill nearly 60 people.
According to the rule, individuals who own bump stocks are required to either destroy them or surrender them to the ATF. The rule clarified that bump stocks transform semiautomatic firearms into machine guns by utilizing recoil energy, allowing continuous firing without additional trigger manipulation.
Gun advocates argue that the federal rule infringes on the Second Amendment and expands the definition of a machine gun to include certain semiautomatic weapons.
The Firearms Policy Coalition recently filed an amicus brief in the case, asserting that the rule violates the Constitution. The brief highlights that when the ATF initially considered the legality of bump stocks over twenty years ago, it correctly concluded that they do not qualify as “machineguns.” However, in 2018, under political pressure, the agency changed its stance, adopting a new definition that encompasses the bump stocks in question. The brief argues that petitioners defending this new interpretation either ignore the original statute enacted by Congress or attempt to rewrite it.