Understanding the Supreme Court’s Decision on Bump Stocks.
In a recent Supreme Court case, Garland v. Cargill, : 602 U. S. ____ (2024), the Court addressed the issue of bump stocks and their classification under the law.
Bump stocks are accessories that can be attached to semiautomatic rifles to increase the rate of fire, mimicking the functionality of a machine gun. The case stemmed from a mass shooting in Las Vegas where a shooter used bump stocks to carry out a devastating attack.
Prior to this Supreme Court decision, bump stocks were effectively banned through a rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2018. This rule classified bump stocks as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which severely restricts civilian ownership of machineguns. The rule required owners of bump stocks to destroy or surrender them to ATF to avoid criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court decision overturned the ATF’s rule that classified bump stocks as machineguns. As a result, the ban on bump stocks imposed by the ATF’s rule was lifted, and bump stocks are no longer considered illegal under federal law. This decision effectively reversed the ban on bump stocks that was in place prior to the Supreme Court ruling.
The Court’s decision, written by Justice Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett, held that bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of a “machinegun” as defined by the National Firearms Act. The Court ruled that even though bump stocks can increase the rate of fire, they do not allow a single function of the trigger to fire multiple shots automatically, as required by the law.
However, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing that bump stocks effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into machine guns based on their functionality. They emphasized the history and purpose of machine gun regulation, aiming to prevent armed violence by restricting access to such weapons.
This decision was not based on the Second Amendment but rather on the interpretation of the statutory definition of a machine gun under the National Firearms Act. The practical effect of this ruling is that bump stocks remain legal accessories for semiautomatic rifles, not classified as machine guns based on the Court’s interpretation of the law.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garland v. Cargill clarifies the legal status of bump stocks and provides insights into the statutory definition of machine guns, without impinging on Second Amendment rights.
