WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on whether the federal government had the authority to ban bump stocks, gun accessories used to make semiautomatic rifles fire faster.
The ban was imposed by the Trump administration in response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, in which Stephen Paddock used a firearm equipped with a bump stock to open fire at a country music festival, initially killing 58 people. It is something that
The Supreme Court refused to block the regulation in 2019. The already conservative court has since moved further to the right, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by President Trump, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020.
The case before the court concerns Michael Cargill, a Texas-based firearms owner and licensed dealer who owned two bump stocks before the ban went into effect but later sold them. was handed over to the government. He filed a lawsuit arguing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacked legal authority to enforce the ban.
Bump stocks use the recoil energy of a trigger pull to fire up to hundreds of rounds in what the federal government calls a “single action.”
Cargill's lawyers say this is a difficult skill to master.
“The key to successful bump shooting is a continuous and rapid thrust of the barrel or front grip forward with the non-trigger hand despite the rifle's recoil,” they wrote in court documents. ing.
Some gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, initially supported President Trump's move to restrict bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, but have since strengthened their opposition.
“This is a serious public safety issue,” said Eric Tirschwell, an attorney in the legal department of gun control advocate Everytown for Gun Safety. We've seen it. Bump stocks have the ability to increase mass shootings to the point that it really scares us all.”
The case does not concern the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Challengers argue that the government does not have the authority to ban bump stocks under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was enacted to regulate machine guns.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 defines a “machine gun” to include any attachment “used to convert a weapon into a machine gun,” and the ATF concluded that bump stocks meet that definition. Ta.
Plaintiffs challenging the ban argued that the legal definition of a machine gun has been distorted beyond recognition and that courts should not defer to federal authorities' interpretation.
Lower courts are divided on the issue, with the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals both ruling that the ban is illegal. There is.
The Biden administration has appealed both cases, but gun rights advocates are challenging a ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the ban.
Despite the ban currently in effect, BumpStock.com, run by bump stock inventor Jeremiah Cottle, is currently in seven states subject to the Fifth and Sixth Circuit rulings. (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana). And Mississippi.
Asked in an interview whether he would sell the product in other states if the rule is struck down, Cottle said that would be up to a judge.
“I want to see what the Supreme Court does. It's not putting the cart before the horse,” he added. Cottle, who said he sold about 100 bump stocks in the wake of the recent court ruling, is scheduled to appear at Wednesday's oral argument.
ATF spokeswoman Christina Mastropasca said that despite the court ruling, bump stocks are currently “classified as machine guns” nationwide. As a result, they remain prohibited.
Even if the regulation is overturned, bump stocks would still not be available nationwide, with 18 states already banning them, according to Everytown. Congress could also take action.
The court has upheld gun rights in cases that directly touch on the scope of the Second Amendment, including a 2022 decision that upheld the right to carry a handgun outside the home.
But in November, a court ruled that a lawsuit banning people accused of domestic violence from owning firearms may stop short of repealing some long-standing gun laws. suggested.