OPINION | This article contains opinion. This site is licensed to publish this content.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows for rapid trigger re-engagement, does not transform a firearm into a machine gun.
In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that a bump stock does not meet the legal definition of a machine gun, as it does not enable a firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single trigger function.
The case, Garland v. Cargill, questioned whether a bump stock device falls under the category of a machine gun as defined by federal law.
“Congress has long restricted access to ‘machinegun[s],’ a category of firearms defined by the ability to ‘shoot, automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger,'” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
“Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock — an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire) — converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not,” he wrote.
“We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’ And, even if it could, it would not do so ‘automatically,'” Thomas wrote.
“ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns,” he said.
Following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where bump stocks were used, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) deemed them to be machine guns, leading to regulatory actions.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision has now overturned this classification, stating that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the criteria to be labeled a machine gun.
“This tragedy created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Within days, Members of Congress proposed bills to ban bump stocks and other devices ‘designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle,’” Thomas wrote.
“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. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
“Over five years ago I swore I would defend the Constitution of the United States, even if I was the only plaintiff in the case. I did just that,” Central Texas Gun Works owner Michael Cargill said.
“The statute Congress passed did not ban bump stocks, and ATF does not have the power to do so on its own. This result is completely consistent with the Constitution’s assignment of all legislative power to Congress. Any scare-mongering by bump-stock opponents should be directed at Congress, not the Court, which faithfully applied the statute in front of it,” New Civil Liberties Alliance president Mark Chenoweth said.
“The rule that the Court set aside today unlawfully confiscated over 500,000 lawfully purchased bump stocks from American citizens. It never should have been approved, and the bureaucrats responsible for this injustice should hang their heads in shame,” he said.
The ruling has sparked debates around gun safety regulations, with President Biden expressing disappointment in the decision and calling on Congress to consider banning bump stocks and assault weapons to prevent mass shootings.
This decision has significant implications for the regulation and use of bump stocks in the United States, impacting the interpretation of gun laws and accessories related to firearms.
“Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation,” Biden said.