Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

The Supreme Court ruled on June 14 that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it interpreted a federal firearms statute to outlaw the use of bump stocks.

“We conclude that semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ’machinegun‘ because it does not fire more than one shot ’by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Clarence Thomas said in the court’s majority opinion.

The vote was 6–3, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a dissent joined by the other two liberal justices. Her dissent suggested that bump stocks effectively make semiautomatic weapons into machine guns.

“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,” she said.

The prohibitive measure was introduced after the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, in which a gunman used bump stock-equipped firearms. It reversed years of ATF interpretations allowing nonmechanical bump stocks, or those without a spring.

In doing so, the ATF reinterpreted a post-prohibition law that banned the use of machine guns. It was difficult to tell from oral arguments on Feb. 28 how the justices would vote.

Related Stories

Justice Thomas asserted that “nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock.”

He added: “The firing cycle remains the same. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate ‘functions’ of the trigger.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had initially upheld a district court decision in favor of ATF’s rule but that decision was reversed during an en banc review. Justice Thomas’ decision upheld that review’s ruling in favor of Michael Cargill, the radio host who challenged the ATF rule.

“So now, we have a case that is case law that we can move forward around this country and defend our Second Amendment rights,” he said.

Congress’ Authority

Unlike other gun rights cases, the attorneys in this case—Garland v. Cargill—didn’t talk much about the Second Amendment during oral arguments.

Rather, they sought to convince the justices that the phrases “automatically” and “single function of the trigger” within federal law (The National Firearms Act) either did or didn’t apply to bump stocks.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurrence on June 14 that seemed to urge congressional action. Referring to the Las Vegas shooting, he said “an
event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”

He added: “There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

Justice Thomas’ opinion similarly highlighted how former Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned after the Las Vegas shooting that legislation was necessary to ban bump stocks.

Following the opinion’s release, Democratic politicians responded with warnings and calls to action.

“This is a horrible decision that will undoubtedly result in more gun deaths,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wa.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said on X.

Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-Va.) called the decision “[s]hameful” on X and called on Congress to pass a bump stock ban authored by Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.). The latter posted: “An angry lawmaker is a motivated one – This fight is far from over.”

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) responded by suggesting the decision restored the proper separation of powers between the executive and Congress.

“In our Constitutional republic, Congress makes the laws, not the administrative branch,” he said on X. “The Supreme Court just acknowledged this in a 6 to 3 decision invalidating Trump’s bump-stock ban.”