U.S. Supreme Court strikes down ban on bump stocks used in Las Vegas mass shooting • Washington State Standard

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down a rule adopted following a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that defined a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock as a machine gun, which is generally prohibited by federal law.

The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, reduces the executive branch's already limited ability to combat gun violence. Thomas, a staunch advocate of Second Amendment gun rights, wrote that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by prohibiting the sale and possession of stockpiles of shock, which, according to him, differ significantly from machine guns.

“Nothing changes when a semi-automatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock,” Thomas wrote. “Between each shot, the shooter must release trigger pressure and allow it to reset before re-engaging the trigger for another shot.”

The case, Garland v. Cargill, was a 6-3 decision that broke with the ideological lines established by the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a prominent member of the Court's liberal wing, wrote the dissent and argued that the decision put “relief stocks in the hands of civilians.”

“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,” she wrote. “A semi-automatic rifle equipped with a stock fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single trigger function.” Because I, like Congress, call it a machine gun, I respectfully disagree.

Downside of gun safety

The White House criticized the decision.

“Today’s decision rolls back important gun safety regulations,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Americans should not have to live in fear of this massive devastation. »

Biden has called on Congress to ban guns and assault weapons, but any gun legislation risks being blocked with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats holding only a slim majority in the Senate.

“Bump stocks have played a devastating role in many horrific mass shootings in our country, but unfortunately, it is not surprising to see the Supreme Court roll back this necessary public safety rule as it pushes its agenda extreme and disconnected from reality,” the Senate Majority Leader said. Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

Trump-era rule

This case stems from a regulation adopted during the Trump administration, following the mass shooting in Las Vegas. A gunman used rifles fitted with stocks to shoot into a crowd at a music festival, killing 58 people and injuring more than 500.

The following year, the ATF issued a rule that bump stocks were illegal machine guns. Anyone who owned or possessed bump stock had to either destroy the material or turn it over to the agency to avoid criminal penalties.

Michael Cargill, a gun store owner in Austin, Texas, surrendered two replacement stocks to the ATF and then challenged the rule in federal court.

“automatically” or “by a single trigger function”.

This law defined a machine gun as “any weapon that fires, is designed to fire, or can be easily restored to fire multiple shots automatically, without manual reloading, by a single operation of the trigger.”

The Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court.

Arguments before the High Court

During oral arguments, the Biden administration defended the Trump-era rule and said bump stocks allow semiautomatic rifles to fire automatically with just a pull of the trigger.

Cargill's lawyers argued that bump stocks are used by repeatedly pulling the trigger, rather than automatically firing with a single pull.

In his dissent, Sotomayor said the decision would limit the federal government's “efforts to keep machine guns away from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”

Thomas also authored a major gun ruling in 2022 that struck down a New York law prohibiting carrying a firearm in public without demonstrating a special need for protection. The court decided the case based on the 14th Amendment, but it also expanded Second Amendment rights.

Because of this 2022 decision, another gun-related case is before the court this session that tests a federal law that prevents the possession of firearms by a person who is the subject of an order of protection against domestic violence. A decision is expected this month.