Bump Stock Ban Crashes And Burns In Senate
'As a firearms owner myself, there’s no legitimate use for a bump stock'
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks.
In December 2018, the Trump administration outlawed bump stocks via an ATF rule that declared the device to be a "machine gun," thus making bump stocks illegal under federal law. The case, Garland v. Cargill, made its way to the Supreme Court after a U.S. district court initially ruled in the government's favor, a decision with which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.
'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.'
The central issue in the case is whether a bump stock device fits the definition of "machine gun."
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority because bump stock devices do not meet the statutory definition of a "machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C §5845(b)."
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.
Using the statutory definition of a machine gun — any firearm capable of firing "automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger" — Thomas explained why a bump stock doesn't satisfy the definition.
He wrote:
A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock doesnot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” With or without a bump stock, a shooter must releaseand reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of thetrigger.” All that a bump stock does is accelerate the rateof fire by causing these distinct “function[s]” of the triggerto occur in rapid succession.
This is the critical distinction between fully automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms.
Fully automatic firearms discharge all of their available ammunition with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms, on the other hand, fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled. A bump stock increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm by using the recoil of the firearm essentially to "bump" the trigger to the finger rapidly. But the core mechanics of the firearm — a single bullet discharged per trigger pull — are not modified.
Importantly, Thomas wrote that even if a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock fired with a single function of the trigger, it doesn't do so "automatically."
"[A] semiautomatic rifle cannot fire more than one shot 'automatically ... by a single function of the trigger' because the shooter must do more than simply engage the trigger one time. The same is true of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock," Thomas wrote.
Moreover, Thomas noted the ATF changed its position on bump stocks after the 2017 Las Vegas mass killing despite having previously argued "on more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations" that bump stocks did not meet the statutory definition of "machine gun."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion. The court's other two left-leaning justices — Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined her.
Despite the majority's technical and mechanical explanation of why a bump stock does not satisfy the statutory definition of "machine gun," Sotomayor opened her dissenting opinion by making a significant accusation.
"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands," she claimed.
"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," she added.
However, unlike the majority, Sotomayor eschewed the technical mechanics of firearms — even writing at one point, "Regardless of what is happening in the internal mechanics of a firearm" — and tried to redefine the statute. She argued that a "single function of the trigger" actually means "a single action by the shooter to initiate a firing sequence."
Moreover, Sotomayor fearmongered that the ruling "will have deadly consequences" while bemoaning that it "hamstrings" the government.
But the one concurring opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel Alito, proves the ruling does no such thing.
According to Alito, there is a "simple remedy" to outlaw bump stocks.
"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," Alito wrote.
"Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act," he added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson demonstrated their incredible misunderstanding of bump stocks this week.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Garland v. Cargill. At issue is whether a bump stock device is a "machine gun" as defined in federal law.
The issue came to the Supreme Court after Michael Cargill, the owner of a Texas gun store, sued the federal government over an ATF ruling that bump stock devices are a "machine gun" and thus illegal to own. A U.S. district court initially ruled in the government's favor, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The Biden administration then appealed that to the Supreme Court.
At oral arguments, Justices Kagan and Jackson repeated claims that bump stocks modify firearms to fire hundreds of bullets per second.
Jackson claimed the "function" of a bump stock-modified rifle is to fire "800 rounds a second," later asserting the device "automatically allows for 800 rounds to be released." Sotomayor, meanwhile, posited that bump stocks allow a rifle "to shoot 400 to 700 or 800 rounds of ammunition."
— (@)
But their claims are false.
First, a bump stock does allow for a firearm to discharge ammunition more rapidly — but not in the same way as a traditional "machine gun."
Fully automatic firearms, on one hand, fire all of their available ammunition with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms, on the other hand, fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled. But a bump stock increases the fire rate of semi-automatic rifles by using the recoil of the firearm to assist the shooter to fire more rapidly, essentially "bumping" the trigger to the finger. But the core function of the firearm — one bullet discharged per trigger pull — is not modified.
Second, it's not true that a bump stock-modified firearm can fire hundreds of bullets per second, though they can fire hundreds of rounds per minute. The fastest-firing gun in use by the U.S. military can only fire up to around 100 rounds per second.
Johnathan Mitchell, lawyer for Cargill, quickly corrected the justices.
In response to Sotomayor's claim, Mitchell said, "They don't shoot 400 to 700 rounds because the magazine only goes up to 50. So you're still going to have to change the magazine after every round. We allow large-capacity magazines up to 50."
And in response to Jackson's assertions, Mitchell explained, "It's factually incorrect to say that a function to the trigger automatically starts some chain reaction that propels multiple bullets from the gun. A function of the trigger fires one shot, then the shooter must take additional manual action."
A decision in the case is expected to be handed down by June.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Former President Donald Trump's controversial ban on bump stocks was placed on hold last week by a federal appeals court that determined the ban is probably unconstitutional.
After the Las Vegas massacre — in which one gunman murdered 61 people and injured more than 400 others attending a country music festival — Trump vowed to take action to prevent another mass killing like that from happening again.
Trump zeroed in on bump stocks, a device the Las Vegas killer used to quickly murder so many people. A bump stock uses the recoil of a semi-automatic rifle to rapidly fire ammunition. The device itself does not modify a rifle's firing capacity — a rifle modified with a bump stock still requires the trigger to be depressed to fire every round — but allows the trigger to be depressed so rapidly that it essentially fires similarly to a fully automatic rifle.
More than one year after the Las Vegas massacre, the Justice Department issued a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulation updating the definition of "machine gun" to include firearms modified with bump stocks.
The Justice Department claimed such firearms are machine guns because they "allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun ..."
The group Gun Owners of America and others sued the government, arguing the bump stock ban violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, the 14th Amendment's right to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act, according to Bloomberg Law.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a federal district court should have granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against the ban because they could likely prove the ban is unlawful.
The federal government argued the bump stock ban is justified under the Chevron deference, a legal doctrine permitting judicial deference to an agency's statutory interpretation of ambiguous law.
However, the appeals court vehemently disagreed.
"[The] Chevron deference categorically does not apply to the judicial interpretation of statutes that criminalize conduct," the court explained. "Because the definition of machine gun...applies to a machine-gun ban carrying criminal culpability and penalties, we cannot grant Chevron deference to the ATF's interpretation."
In fact, the court explained the question of bump stock lawfulness should be answered — but not by unaccountable executives.
Whether ownership of a bump-stock device should be criminally punished is a question for our society. Indeed, the Las Vegas shooting sparked an intense national debate on the benefits and risks of bump-stock ownership. And because criminal laws are rooted in the community, the people determine for themselves—through their legislators—what is right or wrong. The executive enforces those determinations. It is not the role of the executive— particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.
But the court did not stop there.
Not only is the ban not defensible under judicial precedent, but the court rejected the government's attempt to redefine "machine gun," ruling that "bump stock does not fall within the statutory definition of a machine gun."
While the appeals court ultimately remanded the case to the lower court, the Supreme Court has already signaled unwillingness to address the issue.
In fact, the Supreme Court last year rejected hearing a similar case, Guedes v. ATF. Justice Neil Gorsuch essentially explained at the time that lower courts needed to resolve issues with the case before the Supreme Court reviewed it.