Las Vegas, Nevada – The Trump administration’s response to the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, where 58 people lost their lives and hundreds were injured at an outdoor music festival, was to push for a ban on bump stocks. These devices, used by the gunman in the tragic Las Vegas incident, were capable of modifying semiautomatic rifles to fire hundreds of bullets per minute.
Now, the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the legality of this ban, a decision that could potentially impact federal limitations on the use of such devices. The ban on bump stocks stands out as one of the limited actions taken by the federal government to address the increasing frequency of mass killings over the last decade. Despite resistance from Congress and certain courts, the government began to reevaluate regulations on bump stocks after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting and intensified efforts following the tragic Parkland, Florida incident in 2018.
The case before the Supreme Court involves Michael Cargill, a U.S. Army veteran and owner of a gun store in Austin, who challenged the Trump-era rules after being compelled to surrender his bump stocks. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Cargill contests that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives overstepped its authority in reinterpreting long-standing restrictions on machine guns to include bump stocks.
This legal battle is one of several challenging the authority of federal agencies, especially by conservatives cautious of what they perceive as government overregulation. Cargill’s lawsuit predated a significant Supreme Court decision in 2022 that expanded gun rights, requiring the government to justify laws limiting Second Amendment rights. This ruling is relevant to another gun case currently before the court, addressing the legality of laws barring gun ownership by individuals under domestic-violence protective orders.
The specific issue at stake in the Supreme Court hearing does not directly involve the Second Amendment. Instead, it centers on whether ATF officials correctly interpreted a statute banning nonmilitary access to machine guns since 1986. Much of the discussion is expected to focus on the operational mechanics of bump stocks and whether their use aligns with the criteria for a “single function of the trigger.”
Bump stocks are attachments that allow a rifle to rapidly fire by harnessing the weapon’s recoil, enabling it to bump or bounce off a shooter’s trigger finger and discharge bullets at a rate comparable to military machine guns. The Biden administration, upholding the Trump administration’s interpretation, argues that bump stocks qualify as machine guns because they enable continuous firing with a single trigger pull, discharging numerous bullets per minute.
In contrast, Cargill’s legal team disputes this classification, maintaining that the rapid fire is a result of repeated manual trigger activations rather than a single motion. They argue that bump stocks lack components that automate the firing process, emphasizing manual functions requiring physical exertion from the shooter to sustain continuous fire.
As the Supreme Court delves into this complex legal battle, it will not only address the specifics of bump stock devices but also tackle broader questions concerning regulatory power, Second Amendment rights, and the interpretation of fundamental statutes related to firearms. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for gun control measures and the balance between individual rights and public safety.