WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has invalidated a ban on bump stocks, devices that modify semi-automatic rifles to mimic the firing rate of machine guns. This ruling marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates while dealing a setback to those striving to mitigate gun violence.

- Advertisement -

The court’s 6-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, determined that the federal government incorrectly categorized bump stocks as machine guns. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated, “A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, representing the dissent, criticized the majority’s “artificially narrow definition,” warning of potentially “deadly consequences.”

‘Quacks Like a Duck’

Sotomayor emphasized the functionality of bump stocks, which allow firearms to operate at rates comparable to machine guns. The devices, banned following the tragic 2017 Las Vegas shooting that claimed 58 lives, had their classification reversed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in 2018, leading to the current legal challenge.

During the February oral arguments, the conservative justices expressed concerns about both the regulatory reach of federal agencies and the specific technicalities of the case. The crux of their deliberation was whether bump stocks cause rifles to fire multiple rounds “automatically” with a single trigger pull or if each shot is individually activated by the shooter.

- Advertisement -

Legal and Social Implications

Michael Cargill, a Texas-based gun shop owner and advocate, spearheaded the lawsuit against the government. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Cargill, leading to an appeal by the Biden administration. The appeals court ruled that the government’s attempt to ban bump stocks was an overreach, given the ATF’s previous permissions.

Historically, Congress has restricted automatic weapons through the 1934 National Firearms Act, responding to the violent use of machine guns by gangsters. However, this case, unlike other recent gun rights issues, did not directly engage the Second Amendment.

Public and Advocacy Reactions

The ruling has stirred strong reactions from both gun rights advocates and gun control proponents. Gun rights supporters argue that hundreds of thousands of Americans legally purchased bump stocks based on pre-2018 regulations. Conversely, gun control groups and medical professionals, like the American Medical Association, highlight the severe risks associated with rapid-fire modifications, asserting that such devices “have no place in a civilized society.”

The case, Garland v. Cargill, underscores the ongoing national debate over gun regulation and the balance of individual rights versus public safety.