Eleanor Finch
The United States Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the federal ban on bump stocks has sparked widespread debate. The ruling, made on June 14, 2024, in the case of Cargill v. United States, deemed that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not constitute a machine gun as defined by federal law. This decision has significant implications for gun laws across the nation, with up to 34 states potentially affected and a renewed focus on addressing gun violence. The case centred on the interpretation of the National Firearms Act and the authority of the ATF to issue rules classifying bump stocks as machine guns. With a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority rejected the ban, citing issues with the Trump administration's process of enacting the regulation. The ruling has prompted strong reactions, with some applauding the decision as a victory for gun rights, while others express concern over the lethal effects of bump stocks and call for legislative action to ban these devices.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of federal ban on bump stocks | March 26, 2019 |
| Who imposed the ban | Trump administration |
| Reason for the ban | Bump stocks enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns |
| Who challenged the ban | Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner and gun rights advocate from Austin, Texas |
| Court ruling | The Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks in a 6-3 decision in the Garland v. Cargill case |
| Ruling date | June 14, 2024 |
| Ruling impact | Bump stocks are now legal to buy and possess in many states across the country |
| Number of states impacted | Up to 34 states |
| States with bump stock bans | California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington |
| States with laws that ban bump stocks | 15 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's rejection of a federal ban
On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected a federal ban on bump stocks, ruling that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the definition of a "machine gun" as outlined in the National Firearms Act. The Court's 6-3 decision in Cargill v. United States stated that a bump stock cannot be considered a machine gun because it cannot fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.
The ruling struck down a ban imposed by the Trump administration in 2019, following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting where bump stocks were used. The Supreme Court's decision sided with gun rights advocates, who argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority by reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns. The ATF's interpretation of the National Firearms Act was deemed unlawful, as the Act specifically defines machine guns as weapons capable of automatic fire.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has consistently taken an expansive view of gun rights, striking down gun restrictions in several major cases. The Court's decision in Cargill v. United States was not based on Second Amendment arguments but rather on the interpretation of federal law. The ruling has significant implications for gun control, with Justice Samuel Alito acknowledging the lethal effects of bump stocks and urging Congress to act.
While the Supreme Court's decision legalized bump stocks at the federal level, it is important to note that individual states retain the authority to enact their own laws. Currently, 15 to 16 states have enacted bans on bump stocks, recognizing the danger they pose to public safety. The Supreme Court's rejection of the federal ban highlights the ongoing debate surrounding gun control in the United States and the differing approaches taken by federal and state governments.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions, with gun rights groups celebrating the decision while gun control advocates express concern. The Court's interpretation of the National Firearms Act and the definition of "machine gun" will likely have lasting implications for future gun control legislation and the regulation of firearm accessories.
The President's Cabinet: A Team of Advisors and Experts
You may want to see also
Bump stocks as 'machine guns'
Bump stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, which is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession. They are replacement shoulder stocks for semi-automatic rifles that allow the gun to slide back and forth with ease. The shooter holds the bump stock against their shoulder while keeping their trigger finger stationary on the trigger or "trigger ledge". They then grip the front half of the rifle and push forward until their trigger finger engages the trigger.
In 2017, a gunman wielding 14 rifles outfitted with bump stocks killed 60 people and wounded at least 411 more at the Las Vegas Route 91 Harvest Festival—the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. In the aftermath of the shooting, there was bipartisan interest in regulating bump stocks. On October 4, 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to ban bump stocks, but it was not acted upon.
On February 20, 2018, six days after the Parkland shooting, President Trump instructed the Attorney General to dedicate all available resources to propose a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. On December 18, 2018, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice had amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of "machinegun" under federal law.
The final rule, which went into effect on March 26, 2019, clarified that the definition of "machinegun" in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices. This was based on the fact that bump stocks allow semi-automatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the firearm.
However, the constitutionality of the federal ban on bump stocks was challenged in court. On June 14, 2024, the United States Supreme Court in Cargill v. United States held that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the definition of a "machinegun" as defined under the National Firearms Act. The Court determined that a bump stock cannot fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger and, even if it could, it does not do so automatically. As a result of this ruling, bump stocks are now legal to buy and possess in many states across the country.
While the Supreme Court's decision struck down the federal ban on bump stocks, it is important to note that certain state and local laws still prohibit the use, possession, and/or transfer of non-mechanical bump stocks.
The Constitution and Presidential Elections: Delayed or Not?
You may want to see also
State-level bump stock laws
In 2017, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene of the Las Vegas shooting, which killed 58 to 60 people and injured 869 others. This led to a national debate on the legality of bump stocks, with several states passing legislation restricting ownership of bump stocks.
In March 2018, at President Trump's request, the Department of Justice announced a plan to reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns" under existing federal law, effectively banning them nationwide. The final rule, issued on December 18, 2018, clarified that the definition of "machine gun" in the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) includes bump-stock-type devices.
However, on June 14, 2024, the US Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks in a 6-3 decision in the Cargill v. United States case, ruling that bump stocks did not meet the definition of a "machine gun". The Supreme Court's decision effectively legalized bump stocks in many states that did not have their own laws specifically banning them.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, state-level bump stock laws still apply. Bump stock owners are responsible for complying with all state and local laws applicable to bump stocks. As of 2025, bump stocks remain illegal in at least 15 states and the District of Columbia, with cities like Northbrook, Illinois, and Boulder, Colorado, also implementing their own bans.
The Cargill ruling also opens the door for extremists to attempt to overturn the existing bump stock bans in the 16 states with state-level laws. However, the ruling does not prohibit state or federal legislators from creating new laws regarding bump stocks.
Crafting a Charity Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The role of the ATF
The ATF is a U.S. Justice Department agency that is responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal firearms laws. In the context of bump stocks, the ATF initially determined that bump stocks were not considered machine guns under federal law. This interpretation allowed bump stocks to be legally purchased and possessed by individuals.
However, following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting spree that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds more, public sentiment shifted towards regulating bump stocks. In December 2018, the ATF amended its regulations, clarifying that bump stocks fell within the definition of "machinegun" under federal law. This change in interpretation was based on the functionality of bump stocks, which enable semi-automatic firearms to shoot multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy.
The ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns effectively banned their possession and use under federal law. This decision was challenged in court, leading to the Supreme Court case of Cargill v. United States in 2024. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns, and it rejected the federal ban on bump stocks.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the ATF continues to play a crucial role in regulating bump stocks. While the federal ban has been struck down, the ATF is responsible for enforcing existing laws and ensuring compliance with state and local regulations regarding bump stocks. The ATF also provides guidance and notifications to individuals with potential ownership interests in bump stocks, offering them the opportunity to request the return of their bump stocks in ATF custody.
Rousseau's Influence on the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Second Amendment
In recent years, the Second Amendment has been invoked in discussions about bump stocks, devices that can be attached to semi-automatic firearms to increase their rate of fire. In 2018, the Department of Justice, under the direction of President Trump, proposed a regulation to ban bump stocks, arguing that they fall under the definition of "machine guns" and are therefore illegal under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act. This proposal sparked debates about the constitutionality of such a ban.
During the oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill, Justice Kavanaugh questioned the absence of a Second Amendment claim in the challenge to the ATF's ban. Cargill's attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, responded that courts typically avoid constitutional questions when statutory interpretations are available. Mitchell also acknowledged the ambiguity surrounding the classification of bump stocks as "dangerous and unusual weapons", which could potentially fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
The Duke Center for Firearms Law highlighted that while federal courts have addressed the bump stock issue, the Second Amendment aspect often takes a back seat. They noted that Justice Kavanaugh inquired about how Congress should craft legislation banning bump stocks, reflecting a conservative viewpoint that legislative resolution is preferable. Additionally, they pointed out that bump stocks may have a weaker claim to being considered "arms" protected by the Second Amendment, as they are accessories that enhance the efficiency of firearms rather than being essential to their function.
The debate surrounding the Second Amendment and bump stocks underscores the complexities of interpreting constitutional rights and the ongoing dialogue about the scope of gun regulation in the United States.
The Executive Branch: Who Leads and How?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. They harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire rapidly.
In 2019, the Trump administration imposed a federal ban on bump stocks, classifying them as "machine guns" under existing federal law. This came after the devices were used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where 58 people were killed.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks in a 6-3 decision, stating that the Trump administration did not follow federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks. The ruling effectively legalized bump stocks in many states.
The Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for extremists to attempt to overturn existing bump stock bans in states with state-level laws. While the ruling does not prohibit state or federal legislators from creating new laws about bump stocks, it has been criticized for prioritizing gun rights over public safety.
