The Supreme Court recently invalidated a Trump-era regulation on bump stocks.
The Supreme Court, guided by conservative perspectives, declared a regulation on bump stocks invalid due to inaccurate statutory wording.
According to Newsweek, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the existing statutes do not support the prohibition of bump stocks, necessitating legislative action if such bans are desired.
In the wake of the tragic Las Vegas shooting in 2017, bump stocks, devices invented in the early 2000s that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire continuously, came under intense scrutiny. This event left 60 people dead and hundreds injured after a gunman used bump stocks, escalating the gunfire's lethal capacity.
A legal tilt arose when a Texas gun shop owner contested the ATF’s reclassification of bump stocks as prohibited machine guns. Initially, both the Bush and Obama administrations had not deemed bump stocks as machine guns under federal law.
In Garland v. Cargill, the pivotal case questioning the legality of this reclassification, the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled against the ban. This latest decision marks a significant pivot in the interpretation of firearms regulation in the U.S.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito articulated that the current legal text does not encompass bump stocks within its scope. His stance emphasizes the necessity for a Congressional amendment to the law for any future prohibition.
The decision did not resonate well with the liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor distinctly argued for a more intuitive approach to defining machine guns, which would include bump-stock-equipped rifles.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor articulated her opposition by likening the functional traits of bump stocks to those of traditional automatic weapons:
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. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.
The implications of the Supreme Court's decision pivot significantly on the interpretation of legal texts. Alito's commentary further articulated the position that the tragic events in Las Vegas did not alter the meaning of the law concerning bump stocks.
Alito’s suggestion to Congress was clear, advocating for an amendment to ensure clarity in the law’s application: "There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation."
This landmark ruling underscores the judicial philosophy of sticking closely to the letter of the law, thrusting the onus back onto Congress to resolve any ambiguities surrounding the definition and legality of bump stocks.
The recent decision by the Supreme Court serves as a critical reminder of the dynamic interplay between the judiciary and legislative branches in shaping U.S. gun policy. It is now up to Congress to respond to the Court's challenge and decide the future regulatory path for bump stocks and potentially similar devices.
