Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Biden administration on Friday, ruling that the federal ban on “bump stocks,” accessories that increase the firing rate of semiautomatic rifles, is invalid. In a 6-3 decision divided along ideological lines, with the conservative justices in the majority, the Court determined that a law dating back almost a century aimed at prohibiting machine guns does not encompass bump stocks. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that a firearm equipped with a bump stock does not meet the definition of a “machinegun” under federal law.
The ruling sparked a passionate dissent from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who compared bump stocks enabling semiautomatic rifles to function like machine guns to a duck walking, swimming, and quacking like a duck. She also took the unusual step of summarizing her dissent in court. Despite the removal of the federal ban, bump stocks will still face restrictions as eighteen states have already prohibited them, and there is potential for congressional action.
Gun control advocates criticized the decision, with Esther Sanchez-Gomez from Giffords Law Center expressing disappointment in the Justices’ choice to side with the gun lobby over the safety of the American people. The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision not to block the ban marked a shift to the right, with a 6-3 conservative majority that has historically supported gun rights in previous cases.
The legal battle surrounding the ban on bump stocks centered on the interpretation of a “machine gun” under the National Firearms Act, passed in 1934 in response to Prohibition-era violence. The case was brought by Michael Cargill, a Texas-based gun owner, who surrendered his bump stocks to the government following the ban. Cargill emphasized his commitment to defending the Constitution in response to the ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision aligned with Cargill’s argument that bump stocks do not transform a firearm into a machine gun, as each shot still requires the trigger to be engaged. Lower courts were divided on the issue, with both the 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit Courts ruling the ban unlawful. The Biden administration appealed in both cases, highlighting the ongoing debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights in light of evolving gun regulations.