The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks, which had been approved by former President Donald Trump, marking another decision that limits the authority of federal agencies.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The court’s liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.
Trump had advocated for the ban following a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people. Bump stocks enable a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate similar to a machine gun.
"A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does," Thomas wrote. "Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every 'function of the trigger.'"
The ban was contested by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner who bought two bump stocks in 2018, surrendered them after the ban, and then sued to reclaim them. The federal rule made possessing a bump stock a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
While the case did not hinge on the Second Amendment, it reignited the gun debate at the court in one of this year’s most closely watched controversies. The ruling aligns with the court's recent trend of siding with gun rights groups.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by the court's other two liberal justices, criticised the majority ruling, warning of "deadly consequences."
"The decision hampers the Government’s efforts to prevent gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter from using machine guns," she wrote.
In a rare move, Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, underscoring her strong disagreement.
"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," Sotomayor wrote. "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 machine gun, I respectfully dissent."
The challenge to the bump stock ban is indirectly linked to a 1930s gun control law targeting gangsters like Al Capone and John Dillinger. Responding to violent crimes involving machine guns, lawmakers required registration of such weapons.
By 1986, the law was amended to generally prohibit Americans from owning or transferring machine guns. The law defined "machine gun" as a weapon that fires more than one round with "a single function of the trigger." The interpretation of this phrase was central to the appeal.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations, along with gun control groups, argued that bump stocks qualify as machine guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reclassified bump stocks as machine guns in 2018, making their possession illegal.
Trump described bump stocks as converting "legal weapons into illegal machines."
The ATF estimated that up to 520,000 bump stocks were sold between 2010 and 2018. The device replaces a semiautomatic rifle’s regular stock, allowing the shooter to use the recoil to simulate automatic fire.
Opponents argued that the ATF overstepped its authority with this reclassification, noting that previous administrations had not considered bump stocks to be covered by the law.
A US District Court in Texas and a three-judge panel of the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals initially sided with the Justice Department. However, the full 5th Circuit later issued a divided opinion siding with Cargill.
During oral arguments, several conservative justices expressed concern that Americans who purchased bump stocks legally could suddenly face prosecution.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted the risk of "ensnaring" unaware citizens. "Even if you’re not aware of the legal prohibition, you can be convicted," he said. "That’s going to ensnare a lot of people who are not aware of the legal prohibition."
Another key argument was whether Congress, rather than the ATF, should have enacted the ban. This question has become central in recent Supreme Court cases, with groups challenging various financial and environmental regulations.
The court has consistently sided with gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, that opposed the bump stock ban. Recently, the conservative majority invalidated a New York state law requiring residents to demonstrate a special need to carry a weapon outside their homes.
Source:
https://edition.cnn.com/ Image:
https://www.cbsnews.com/
