In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, has struck down the Trump administration’s regulation that sought to ban bump stocks. The ruling has generated significant discussion, particularly because of the views expressed by Thomas regarding the skill involved in using such devices. The regulation aimed to classify bump stocks under the statutory definition of machine guns, which are weapons that fire more than one shot per single trigger pull, according to 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). However, Thomas argued that bump stocks do not fit this classification because the trigger mechanism still moves with each shot, even if the shooter only pulls the trigger once.
Bump stocks gained national attention following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which resulted in 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries. These devices enable a semi-automatic firearm to fire at a rate comparable to automatic weapons. In his opinion, Thomas detailed the intricate balance required to operate a bump stock effectively, describing it as a “balancing act” that requires skill to maintain adequate forward pressure for firing without overriding the rifle’s recoil mechanism.
While Thomas’ detailed account of the technicalities involved in bump firing was intended to support his interpretation of the statute, it has also been criticized. For instance, an analysis by Above the Law highlights the controversial nature of Thomas’ praise for the skill involved in using bump stocks, particularly in the context of mass shootings.
The decision was not without dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor offered a counter-argument, asserting that bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifles should be classified as machine guns because they can fire continuously with a single trigger pull, provided the shooter maintains forward pressure. Sotomayor pointed out the majority’s deviation from the usual approach of adhering to the ordinary meaning of statutory terms as intended by Congress.
Sotomayor’s dissent underscores the confusion and controversy surrounding the decision, emphasizing the need for clearer legislative guidance on such matters. The full opinion, including the interplay between different judicial interpretations, can be found here.