eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)
Bump stocks have become a contentious issue in the debate around gun control and regulation of firearm accessories. This device, which allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, was thrust into the national spotlight after being used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. Understanding what bump stocks are and how they work is important context for the legal battle now before the Supreme Court.
A bump stock is an attachment that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire in rapid succession, mimicking the firing rate of a fully automatic weapon. It replaces the standard stock of a rifle and uses the rifle's recoil to bounce, or "bump," the trigger against the shooter's stationary finger. So for each single pull of the trigger, the rifle fires, recoils, and bounces off the finger to fire again in rapid sequence. This allows hundreds of rounds to be discharged per minute, similar to a machine gun.
Bump stocks were originally created to help people with disabilities more easily fire rifles. But they also appeal to recreational shooters or gun enthusiasts who want the thrill of shooting something like a machine gun, which has been heavily regulated since the 1930s. The devices were a niche accessory until the Las Vegas shooter used them to rain down fire on a music festival crowd in 2017. This mass shooting, which killed 58 people and injured hundreds, propelled the issue of bump stocks into the national debate.
Proponents argue bump stocks just assist shooters in "bump firing," a technique that can be done without the device. They say banning accessories does nothing to curb violence. Opponents counter that bump stocks make mimicry of machine guns effortlessly easy, bypassing laws that restrict automatic weapons. Allowing these devices undermines public safety, they claim.
The technical functioning of bump stocks is at the heart of the legal debate around them. Do they transform legal semiautomatic weapons into illegal machine guns? Or are they more like trigger modifications that just enhance manual firing technique? How bump stocks work mechanically will factor into the Supreme Court's ruling on whether the federal ban encroaches on Second Amendment rights. The verdict could have broad implications for the legality of other gun accessories.
The legislative and regulatory history of bump stocks has been unsteady, with federal policy reversed multiple times over the past decade. Bump stocks entered the civilian gun market in the early 2000s, but remained an obscure novelty item for years. That changed after the Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017 thrust bump stocks into the national consciousness and prompted demands for lawmakers to take action.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates firearms at the federal level, had deemed bump stocks to be legal accessories when they first emerged. The ATF determined bump stocks did not fit the legal definition of machine guns, which require continuously pulling the trigger for multiple shots. With a bump stock, the trigger is technically only pulled once to fire multiple shots in succession.
In the wake of the Las Vegas tragedy, the ATF was tasked with reevaluating bump stocks. There was immense political pressure for a ban. However, the ATF initially found its hands tied because the relevant laws hadn't changed. Many officials argued new legislation was required to prohibit bump stocks. Efforts were undertaken in Congress to pass a federal ban, but the bills stalled amid partisan disagreement.
With no congressional action, President Trump vowed to tackle the issue through executive action. In late 2018, the ATF reversed its position and finalized a new federal rule to ban bump stocks by classifying them as illegal machine guns. However, some warned Trump"s bump stock ban could be vulnerable to legal challenges because an agency rule change arguably contradicted existing statutes.
The federal bump stock ban did face immediate legal action, and the rule was struck down by a federal court in 2019. The judge said the ATF lacked authority to reinterpret what constituted a machine gun under current law. For a period, the federal bump stock ban was halted. Most states, however, still prohibited bump stocks under their own laws.
The crux of the legal battle over federal bump stock prohibition is whether the ATF had the authority to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns, which are tightly regulated. Critics argue the agency overstepped its power by contradicting statutes that have not categorically banned bump stocks.
The Gun Owners of America, which brought a lawsuit challenging the ATF ban, contends the agency does not have discretion to make expansive reinterpretations of criminal law. They say federal law defines a machine gun as operating through a self-acting mechanism that fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. Bump stocks require the shooter to manually and repeatedly pull the trigger for each discharge.
In a brief to the Supreme Court, the gun owners group argued: "Congress drew a bright line between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. The ATF obliterated that line when it took the unprecedented step of declaring that bump stocks fall on the fully-automatic side of the line, even though the ATF previously said"over and over again"that bump stocks are not machineguns."
Critics warn allowing this unilateral prohibition of bump stocks sets a dangerous precedent for ATF overreach. Future administrations could similarly reclassify and ban perhaps any disfavored firearm accessory without Congressional approval, gradually eroding Second Amendment rights.
The Cato Institute filed a brief supporting this position, asserting: "Judicial acquiescence in this instance, even if motivated by the understandable desire to address a compelling policy issue, will signal a pliability in our constitutional system that will be exploited in the future."
Opponents maintain the Chevron deference doctrine obligates judicial deference to the ATF"s changed interpretation. However, challengers question whether vagueness or ambiguity exists in the statutory definition of a machine gun that warrants deference to the agency"s discretion.
Ultimately, the case may turn on the Supreme Court"s interpretation of what constitutes a machine gun under the letter of the law. The justices will have to weigh faithfulness to the intent of existing statutes versus the executive"s flexibility to respond to perceived public danger of firearm add-ons. Their ruling could strengthen or erode the ATF"s ability to regulate gun accessories without congressional action.
The catalyst for the current legal battle over federal bump stock prohibition was public safety fears in the aftermath of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. The horrific attack, which killed 58 concertgoers and wounded hundreds, drew attention to the lethal potential of bump stock devices that had before existed on the fringe of firearm accessories. This launched debate over whether the danger posed to public safety warranted new restrictions.
Proponents of a federal bump stock ban argue the devices enable shooters to inflict mass casualties by mimicking machine gun fire rates. They point to the Las Vegas massacre as evidence. Police reported the shooter had 12 rifles outfitted with bump stocks, allowing him to rain over 1,000 rounds down on the crowd in 10 minutes. The device made it easy for one individual to produce carnage on par with a fully automatic weapon.
Gun control advocates claim bump stocks serve no legitimate purpose, while greatly magnifying the lethality and danger of semi-automatic rifles. Diane Feinstein, who introduced the bump stock ban legislation, argued "bump stocks turn semi-automatic weapons into illegal machine guns" and have "no place in civil society." Even the NRA initially supported more regulation, saying bump stocks "should be subjected to additional regulations."
Critics counter that bump stocks do not transform rifles into illegal machine guns, but simply help shooters manually mimic automatic fire. They argue banning accessories based on their potential misuse is a dangerous precedent. Law-abiding gun owners use bump stocks recreationally for target practice, not violence. The devices themselves are inert and don"t threaten anyone.
Opponents also dispute the tactical impact of bump stocks in mass shootings. They say poorly trained civilians can"t accurately aim or control rifles with bump stocks, so the devices don"t necessarily increase lethality. The Las Vegas shooter fired over 1,000 rounds but only hit about 600 people. Claims about public danger are overstated by gun control advocates looking to restrict Second Amendment rights incrementally, they contend.
Some analysts argue bump stock regulation demonstrates the subjectivity inherent in policymaking. A rare event brings attention to a previously unregulated product, emotions and perceptions of danger run high, policymakers respond with hastily framed bans. But data may not clearly show bump stocks increase fatalities or change attacker behavior. Rather, outrage channeled political will to target a device mostly unknown before.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the federal bump stock ban will have significant implications for Second Amendment jurisprudence and the ongoing legal debate around the constitutional right to bear arms. How the Court interprets and applies the Second Amendment in this case could influence lower courts' approach to evaluating other firearm regulations.
A central issue is whether banning bump stocks amounts to a Second Amendment violation by effectively prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing a firearm accessory. The plaintiffs argue that the ability to enhance semi-automatic firing rate is constitutionally protected, and bump stocks do not transform rifles into unprotected machine guns under the law. They warn upholding this ban could open the door to prohibitions of other accessories like trigger cranks that mimic automated firing.
However, courts have previously upheld various restrictions, like assault weapons bans, under intermediate scrutiny standards for protected Second Amendment conduct. The government maintains the compelling public safety interests in limiting bump stock lethality outweighs the modest burden on gun owners. They argue the ban does not prevent possession of any class of firearms.
Broader questions involve the scope of "arms" under the Second Amendment and whether it covers enhancements like bump stocks that increase firing capacity. The Court's interpretation may delineate the boundaries of permissible versus impermissible restrictions on firearm accessories.
Moreover, affirming Chevron deference to executive reclassification of bump stocks could enable future administrations to impose firearm regulations through agency rule changes rather than legislation. This might incentivize presidents to bypass Congress and enact gun control measures via executive action.
Alternatively, denying such deference could weaken the executive's ability to swiftly respond to perceived threats regarding firearms. However, critics counter that important issues impacting constitutional rights warrant legislative deliberation, not unilateral executive action.
This case also raises federal versus state powers over gun laws, since many states independently banned bump stocks even when federal policy permitted them. Affirming the federal ban could motivate more national firearm standards to preempt state laws.
The bump stock case also raises concerns among Second Amendment advocates about a slippery slope leading to bans on other gun accessories. Critics argue upholding prohibition here could create a dangerous precedent for outlawing additional firearm add-ons viewed as enhancing lethality. This could substantially limit the options available to lawful gun owners.
Many warn the executive branch could keep stretching authority to unilaterally ban whatever device they label dangerous, like foregrips, pistol braces, or modified triggers. Without legislative input, an agency like the ATF might implement successive prohibitions on disfavored accessories through incremental rule changes. Each ban viewed in isolation seems reasonable for public safety. But collectively, critics argue, this regulatory creep could disarm citizens and infringe Second Amendment rights.
This case has drawn comparisons to the 1934 National Firearms Act, which first regulated machine guns. At the time, promoters claimed narrowly restricting automatic weapons would not threaten law-abiding gun owners. However, critics now see that law as the top of a slippery slope leading to greater restrictions. Allowing the executive leeway to reinterpret definitions like "machine gun" enables gradual tightening of regulations on all firearm accessories.
Some analysts suggest affirming this ban despite weak data on public safety impact could incentivize emotion-driven restrictions after shocking events. The Las Vegas tragedy generated outrage, but evidence connecting bump stocks with increased fatalities is unclear. Policymakers often feel pressure to "do something" after horrific attacks. But critics argue only careful data-driven analysis, not emotion, should guide firearm regulation.
Additionally, some legal experts caution that letting stand contradictory agency reinterpretations of statutes undermines rule of law principles. If Chevron deference allows the ATF to reverse its own long-held positions based on political winds, the law becomes unreliable. Today bump stocks are banned, tomorrow permitted again. This erodes consistency and due process.
The bump stock case exemplifies the challenging balancing act the Supreme Court faces when individual liberties conflict with public safety concerns. In evaluating firearm regulations, the Court must weigh to what extent government can restrict freedoms to protect the populace. This case highlights the difficulty of reconciling these competing principles.
On one hand, critics argue bump stocks are recreational accessories that do not transform legal rifles into prohibited machine guns. Banning them infringes on the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners who wish to simulate automatic firing for sport. Upholding an executive agency's unilateral prohibition could open the door to banning other accessories, incrementally disarming citizens. Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork called the Second Amendment "a guarantee of freedom and not just the right of states to maintain militias."
However, proponents contend the carnage in Las Vegas demonstrates bump stocks pose unacceptable dangers to public safety that warrant reasonable limits on their use. Former Justice Stephen Breyer argued the Second Amendment protects militias, not unrestrained individual firearm rights. Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that restrictions preserving public safety are consistent with the Constitution.
This philosophical divide was evident when the Court last examined firearm restrictions in the 2008 Heller case. The justices engaged in heated debate about whether DC's handgun ban violated the Second Amendment or served compelling government interests in public safety. The 5-4 ruling struck down the ban but left ambiguity about permissible restrictions.
Lower courts have since upheld various state and local gun laws using intermediate scrutiny if they served important government objectives. However, these cases involved restrictions on types of weapons, not add-ons like bump stocks. This Supreme Court must weigh if limiting a single accessory measurably protects public safety versus excessively burdens individual liberty. Their decision may delineate what government interests justify firearm restrictions against objections that they erode Constitutional rights.
Past Justice Antonin Scalia argued judicial review inherently involves counter-majoritarian difficulty - unelected judges overriding democratic will to protect minority rights. In this case, the ATF responded to public outcry, but critics argue pure democracy does not trump Constitutional freedoms. It falls to the Court to determine whether the government overreached.
The Supreme Court's impending decision in the federal bump stock ban case has momentous implications for setting precedent around firearm regulations. The ruling will directly impact the legality of bump stocks, but more broadly could delineate the scope of governmental authority to impose gun restrictions. This case represents the first major Second Amendment challenge the new conservative Court majority will decide. Their interpretation of Constitutional protections versus public safety interests will likely shape legal standards for evaluating firearm laws nationwide.
Affirming the federal prohibition on bump stocks would significantly expand the executive branch's power to unilaterally regulate firearm accessories. This could enable successive presidential administrations to bypass Congress and enact bans on additional devices through agency reclassification. However, striking down the bump stock ban would constrain the government's ability to swiftly address perceived threats regarding firearms without new legislation.
The Court's ruling will also provide guidance to lower courts that have upheld various state and local gun regulations in recent years. If the justices rule based on a broad view of public safety imperatives overriding Second Amendment objections, this could motivate more expansive firearm restrictions locally. But a decision stressing individual liberties and limits on governmental authority would likely curb new gun control measures.
Moreover, this precedent could influence Second Amendment cases involving other contested issues like open carry, concealed carry, assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, smart gun technology mandates, and more. The Court's philosophy on balance of powers, administrative discretion, and the scope of "the right to bear arms" will set guideposts for many gun law challenges percolating up through the judicial system.
As the first major gun case of the post-Scalia Court era, legal experts suggest this ruling may destabilize the ambiguous status quo on firearm regulations stemming from prior split decisions. It could lead to a monumental resetting of benchmarks around evaluating the constitutionality of gun laws. The justices have an opportunity to provide needed clarity by directly addressing unsettled Second Amendment doctrines related to scrutiny levels, permissible restrictions, and deference to lawmakers" public safety judgments.