The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the Trump-era ban on bump stocks, killing a rule which had been in legal jeopardy since it was enacted, and which critics say was not motivated by sound logic.
The Supreme Court in Garland v. Cargill found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by redefining semi-automatic weapons equipped with bump stocks as “machine guns” prohibited under the National Firearms Act. The bump stock ban was enacted in the wake of the 2017 mass shooting in Mandalay Bay, in which Stephen Paddock used firearms equipped with bump stocks to kill 60 people.
Legal experts say the ban was legally dubious from its inception, and critics argue the ban was a political reaction to the anti-gun backlash in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting.
“This illegal ban was wholly reactionary and fueled by emotion, which is the absolute worst way to produce policy,” Gun Owners of America (GOA) Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And in this particular case, because ATF was able to get away with this ban for over five years, they were only emboldened to enact more unlawful gun control when the current anti-gunner-in-chief took power.”
GOA sued the Trump administration in 2018 over the bump stock ban, arguing that it was unconstitutional.
Moreover, the logic used to redefine weapons equipped with bump stocks as machine guns had been rejected by the ATF in previous interpretations of the rule.
The agency, on ten “separate occasions across multiple administrations,” declined to list weapons equipped with bump stocks as automatic weapons, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his opinion.
It’s also not clear, outside of the Las Vegas shooting, how many deaths were attributable to firearms equipped with bump stocks to begin with. Both the National Rifle Association (NRA) and GOA said they did not have data on that question, while anti-gun groups did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
The ATF’s regulation also headed off legislative efforts from Congress, which may have survived legal challenges. By contrast, the ATF’s rule was on extremely shaky legal ground from the get-go.
“On the face of the opinion, it (and the prior ATF interpretation) makes obvious sense from both mechanical and legal perspectives. Congress may have a different view but this is a major change to the law by agency fiat. (The change came under the Trump Administration),” George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley wrote.
“The case is so compelling not just on its logic but the basis for a Supreme Court review that I am tempted to assign it as part of my Supreme Court class,” Turley added. “Hopefully, the Court can resolve my dilemma by accepting the case and placing it on the docket. If any justices are reading this, I would appreciate the academic accommodation.”
However, the Supreme Court’s decision could be a prelude to future rulings limiting restrictions on firearms.
“The bump stock case is gonna be the case that saves everything,” Michael Cargill, the Texas gun shop owner who filed the now-resolved lawsuit against the ATF after he surrendered his bump stocks after they were banned in 2018, said. “It’s going to stop the ATF from coming after your [pistol] brace, the triggers, all different parts and pieces that they’re trying to ban,” he continued.
I WON 6-3 Garland vs Cargill@centexguns @ComeAndTalkIt @NCLAlegal #bumpstock #CargillVGarland pic.twitter.com/g3K7FcGU6g
— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) June 14, 2024
A federal court in Texas on Thursday vacated a Biden administration rule that would ban pistol braces, arm braces resembling stocks that can be attached to firearms the ATF classifies as pistols, deeming it “unlawful” and “illegitimate.”
If the ATF tries its hand again at regulating pistol braces or other gun parts, it could run into legal problems due to the new precedent set by the Supreme Court. (RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban)
“The Supreme Court majority here interpreted statutory language very narrowly when it comes to defining what counts as different types of firearms,” Southern Methodist University Law School professor Eric Ruben told The Trace. “That wouldn’t bode well for other regulations that are focused on accessories and saying accessories transform one gun into another.”
The NRA said it is confident that “the ruling also casts doubt on recent ATF rules—including the ‘pistol brace,’ ‘frame or receiver,’ and ‘engaged in the business’ rules—in which the ATF contradicts Congress’s explicit statutory language.”
The “engaged in business” regulation seeks to expand the definition of who classifies as a firearm dealer so that more people would be subject to federal regulations on transferring guns, and the “frame or receiver” rule redefined certain unfinished firearm parts as firearms, subjecting them to greater regulation.
While the Supreme Court limited the executive branch’s ability to promulgate gun regulations, it left open the path for Congress to develop restrictions on bump stocks and other firearm accessories.
“Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion. “Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
