The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over the validity of a 2018 federal regulation banning the “bump stock” rifle attachment. This regulation, implemented by the Trump administration, barred the ownership of bump stocks. The device in question effectively transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon capable of discharging hundreds of rounds per minute, a capacity akin to that of a machine gun. This technicality was a central point of contention among the justices, with conservative members of the court expressing concern that the regulation could prescribe criminal liability to owners of bump stocks, despite their purchase being legal when acquired. However, a number of justices argued that semiautomatic rifles fitted with bump stocks, due to their lethal firing capacity, were precisely the kind of weapon that Congress intended to regulate.
Detailed description of firearms’ operation became pivotal during the oral argument. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas sought an explanation from Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Brian Fletcher on how a semiautomatic rifle outfitted with a bump stock operates differently from an automatic machine gun. Fletcher explained that while a machine gun continuously fires as long as the trigger is pressed back and held, firing a rifle equipped with a bump stock involves the shooter pushing the rifle forward, initiating and maintaining the firing. This action, according to Fletcher, qualifies as a “single function of the trigger,” because of the singular motion the shooter performs – pushing the rifle forward.
However, representing opposing view was Jonathan Mitchell, Michael Cargill’s legal representative, argued that unlike machine guns, a rifle with a bump stock “can only fire one shot per function of the trigger.” This, in his opinion, was due to the trigger, which catalyzes the firearm’s discharge, resetting after every shot. Mitchell also contended that this “function of the trigger” takes place due to manual effort rather than automatic action, thus not qualifying under the legal terminology mentioned in the statute.
Apart from the technical definitions and mechanics, the justices contemplated the broader implications of the 2018 rule, specifically for the owners who bought the devices legally. The concern over consequences for a significant number of bump-stock owners due to the ATF’s reinterpretation of the definition of machine guns in 2018, was voiced by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Referencing the ATF’s earlier position where they indicated that bump stocks do not qualify as machine guns, Gorsuch argued that due to the abrupt shift in interpretation, between 250,000 to 500,000 people could face conviction on felony charges, and consequently lose civil rights, such as the right to vote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, questioned the possibility of conviction without the owner being aware of the recent prohibition on bump stocks, a query that was answered affirmatively by Fletcher.
Yet, several justices suggested that the immense firing capacity of semiautomatic rifles fitted with bump stocks, means they should be considered under Congress’s prohibition intended for a “machine gun.” This line of reasoning was presented by Justice Thomas, who reminded the court of the original ban on machine guns being a response to the devastating damage caused by them during the Prohibition era.
A decision on the case is expected by summer.
Original report by Amy Howe can be found on SCOTUSblog.