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. |