WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed reluctance to ban banning bump stocks, gun accessories used to increase the rate of fire in semiautomatic rifles.
The ban was imposed by the Trump administration in response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, in which Stephen Paddock used a firearm equipped with a bump stock to open fire at a country music festival, initially killing 58 people. It is something that
The Supreme Court refused to block the regulation in 2019. The already conservative court has since moved further to the right, with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by President Trump, replacing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020.
Conservatives, who have supported gun rights in previous lawsuits, currently hold a 6-3 majority.
During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices asked questions indicating that they believed it was plausible that a nearly 100-year-old law aimed at banning machine guns could be interpreted to include bump stocks. Did. It remains to be seen whether there is a majority that will reach that conclusion.
The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 to regulate machine guns in response to Prohibition-era gang violence.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed unconvinced that a machine gun could not be defined as a weapon capable of firing a “torrent of bullets.”
“This is central to their concerns,” she said, referring to Congress.
“I fully sympathize with your argument,” Barrett told Biden administration lawyer Brian Fletcher, who is defending the ban.
But at other points, she and other conservatives seemed more receptive to the arguments of Texas-based gun owner and licensed dealer Michael Cargill's attorney. Michael Cargill owned two bump stocks before the ban took effect and later turned them over to the government.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said he “understands why these products are illegal,” but questioned whether the law could be interpreted to include bump stocks.
He expressed sympathy for gun owners who were previously told by the ATF that bump stocks were legal before changing course after the Las Vegas shooting. Fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh made similar remarks.
“It's not a positive thing, but it's grounds for a pause,” Kavanaugh said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who, like Kavanaugh, could be a key vote in a split court, he has said little about his side.
Cargill argued in its lawsuit that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lacked legal authority to enforce the ban.
Bump stocks use the recoil energy of a trigger pull to fire up to hundreds of rounds in what the federal government calls a “single action.”
Cargill's lawyers say this is a difficult skill to master.
Some gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, initially supported President Trump's move to restrict bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, but have since strengthened their opposition.
The case does not concern the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Challengers argue that the government does not have the authority to ban bump stocks under a 1934 law.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 defines a “machine gun” to include any attachment “used to convert a weapon into a machine gun,” and the ATF concluded that bump stocks meet that definition. Ta.
Much of the discussion during oral arguments focused on the legal definition of a machine gun as a weapon capable of firing multiple shots automatically “by a single function of the trigger.”
The government argues that the term refers to the actions of the shooter, which requires multiple shots to be fired in one action. Cargill's lawyers argue that this refers to what happens inside a firearm when the trigger is pulled. They argue that it's not a machine gun because even a bump stock requires a trigger pull for each shot.
Plaintiffs challenging the ban argued that the legal definition of a machine gun has been distorted beyond recognition and that courts should not defer to federal authorities' interpretation.
Lower courts are divided on the issue, with the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit Court of Appeals both ruling that the ban is illegal. There is.
The Biden administration has appealed both cases, but gun rights advocates are challenging a ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the ban.
Despite the ban currently in effect, BumpStock.com, run by bump stock inventor Jeremiah Cottle, is currently in seven states subject to the Fifth and Sixth Circuit rulings. (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana). And Mississippi.
Asked in an interview whether he would sell the product in other states if the rule is struck down, Cottle said that would be up to a judge.
“I want to see what the Supreme Court does. It's not putting the cart before the horse,” he added. Cottle, who said he sold about 100 bump stocks in the wake of the recent court ruling, is scheduled to appear at Wednesday's oral argument.
ATF spokeswoman Christina Mastropasca said that despite the court ruling, bump stocks are currently “classified as machine guns” nationwide. As a result, they remain prohibited.
Even if the regulation is overturned, bump stocks would still not be available nationwide, with 18 states already banning them, according to Everytown. Congress could also take action.
The court has upheld gun rights in cases that directly touch on the scope of the Second Amendment, including a 2022 decision that upheld the right to carry a handgun outside the home.
But in November, a court ruled that a lawsuit banning people accused of domestic violence from owning firearms may stop short of repealing some long-standing gun laws. suggested.
