| 
		US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks'
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [June 15, 2024]  
		By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel 
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declared unlawful 
		a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons 
		to fire rapidly like machine guns, rejecting yet another firearms 
		restriction - this time one enacted under Republican former President 
		Donald Trump.
 
 The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Clarence 
		Thomas, upheld a lower court's decision siding with Michael Cargill, a 
		gun shop owner and gun rights advocate from Austin, Texas, who 
		challenged the ban by claiming that a U.S. agency improperly interpreted 
		a federal law banning machine guns as extending to bump stocks. The 
		conservative justices were in the majority, with the liberal justices 
		dissenting.
 
 The rule was imposed in 2019 by Trump's administration after the devices 
		were used during a 2017 mass shooting that killed 58 people at a Las 
		Vegas country music festival.
 
 Democratic President Joe Biden, whose administration defended the rule 
		in court, said the decision "strikes down an important gun safety 
		regulation."
 
 "Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation," 
		Biden added, saying he has "used every tool in my administration to 
		stamp out gun violence."
 
 "I call on Congress to ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban and 
		take additional action to save lives - send me a bill and I will sign it 
		immediately," Biden said.
 
		
		 
		Trump is challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election. Trump campaign 
		spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said after the ruling, "The court has 
		spoken and their decision should be respected," and called him a "fierce 
		defender" of gun rights.
 The case centered on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
		Explosives (ATF), a U.S. Justice Department agency, interpreted a 
		federal law called the National Firearms Act, which defined machine guns 
		as weapons that can "automatically" fire more than one shot "by a single 
		function of the trigger."
 
 "We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 
		'machine gun' because it cannot fire more than one shot 'by a single 
		function of the trigger,'" Thomas wrote. "And, even if it could, it 
		would not do so 'automatically.' ATF therefore exceeded its statutory 
		authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machine 
		guns."
 
 Federal law prohibits the sale or possession of machine guns, punishable 
		by up to 10 years in prison.
 
 Bump stocks use a semiautomatic's recoil to allow it to slide back and 
		forth while "bumping" the shooter's trigger finger, resulting in rapid 
		fire. Federal officials had said the rule was needed to protect public 
		safety in a nation facing persistent firearms violence.
 
 'WALKS LIKE A DUCK'
 
 In a dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the ruling 
		would have "deadly consequences," saying the court's majority cast aside 
		the will of Congress to embrace an "artificially narrow definition" of a 
		machine gun, allowing gun users and manufacturers to circumvent the law.
 
 Sotomayor noted that the court's majority accomplished this by focusing 
		heavily on the internal mechanisms of the firearm and using "six 
		diagrams and an animation" to reach its conclusion when bump 
		stock-equipped firearms are clearly machine guns, Sotomayor said.
 
		
		 
		[to top of second column] | 
            
			 
            A bump fire stock that attaches to a semi-automatic rifle to 
			increase the firing rate is seen at Good Guys Gun Shop in Orem, 
			Utah, U.S., October 4, 2017. REUTERS/George Frey/File Photo 
            
			 
            "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," Sotomayor added.
 After a gunman used weapons outfitted with bump stocks in the Las 
			Vegas shooting spree that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds 
			more, Trump's administration prohibited the devices. In a reversal 
			of the agency's previous stance, the ATF decided that bump stocks 
			were covered by the National Firearms Act.
 
 Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion on 
			Friday: "The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not 
			change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated 
			that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same 
			lethal effect as a machine gun, and it thus strengthened the case 
			for amending (existing law)," Alito said.
 
 "Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act," Alito added.
 
 EXPANSIVE VIEW OF GUN RIGHTS
 
 The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has taken an 
			expansive view of gun rights, striking down gun restrictions in 
			major cases in 2008, 2010 and in 2022. In that 2022 decision, it 
			struck down New York state's limits on carrying concealed handguns 
			outside the home and set a tough new standard for determining the 
			legality of gun regulations. Unlike those three cases, this one was 
			not centered on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to 
			keep and bear arms.
 
 Mark Chenoweth, president of the conservative legal group New Civil 
			Liberties Alliance that represented Cargill, hailed the ruling.
 
 "The statute Congress passed did not ban bump stocks, and ATF does 
			not have the power to do so on its own," Chenoweth said.
 
 John Feinblatt, president of the gun control advocacy group 
			Everytown for Gun Safety, urged Congress to outlaw bump stocks.
 
            
			 
			"Guns outfitted with bump stocks fire like machine guns, they kill 
			like machine guns, and they should be banned like machine guns - but 
			the Supreme Court just decided to put these deadly devices back on 
			the market," Feinblatt said. 
 The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year 
			sided with Cargill.
 
 The United States is a country deeply divided over how to address 
			gun violence that Biden has called a "national embarrassment." Biden 
			and many Democrats favor tougher gun restrictions, while Republicans 
			often oppose them. In this case, it was a Republican administration 
			that implemented the rule.
 
 The justices also are expected to rule by the end of June in another 
			gun rights case. They heard arguments in November over the legality 
			of a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic 
			violence restraining orders to have guns.
 
 (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and John Kruzel in 
			Washington; Additional reporting by Nathan Layne; Editing by Will 
			Dunham)
 
			[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]This material 
			may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |