In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a federal agency’s rule banning bump stocks, devices used in some of America’s deadliest mass shootings. The court found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had exceeded its authority by reclassifying bump stocks as “machine guns” in response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The plaintiff, Michael Cargill, did not claim that the Second Amendment protected his right to own a bump stock. Instead, the case focused on the administrative process by which the ATF banned the devices.
The ATF issued a rule in 2018 reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns, making them illegal for civilians to own under federal law. However, the Supreme Court determined that bump stocks did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun, which requires a gun to fire automatically “by a single function of the trigger.” Despite the ATF’s classification, the court found that a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun, as previously held in at least 10 separate instances before the Las Vegas shooting.
Gun reformers, who had advocated for a ban on bump stocks in response to the deadliness they can wield in mass shootings, were dealt a blow by the Supreme Court ruling. After the Las Vegas shooting, there was a broad consensus that bump stocks should be banned. However, Congress did not act swiftly, leading then-President Donald Trump to direct the ATF to restrict the devices. The new ruling clarifies that Congress would need to impose a bump stock ban in order to remove the devices from the market.
The case, Garland v. Cargill, highlights the challenges in regulating gun accessories like bump stocks through the administrative process. The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory definitions when classifying firearms or accessories. Despite the tragic events that led to the ATF’s ban on bump stocks, the court’s ruling underscores the need for legal clarity and the role of Congress in imposing significant firearms regulations.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for future efforts to regulate gun accessories and firearms through administrative rules. It indicates that congressional action may be necessary to impose significant bans on certain devices, rather than leaving it to federal agencies like the ATF to make such determinations. The ruling also showcases the limitations of administrative power in interpreting and enforcing firearms laws, emphasizing the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches in shaping gun control policies.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill provides clarity on the authority of federal agencies to regulate gun accessories like bump stocks. The ruling underscores the importance of adherence to statutory definitions and the limitations of administrative power in enacting significant firearms regulations. Gun reform advocates will need to turn to Congress for any future bans on bump stocks or other potentially dangerous firearms accessories.
