In a move that brings a contentious piece of firearm regulation back into the national spotlight, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments concerning the legality of the federal ban on bump stocks, an issue that has divided lower courts and rekindled the fiery debate over gun control.
The high court's review comes in the wake of contrasting decisions from appeals courts on whether the Trump administration overstepped its bounds with the prohibition. Gun owner and dealer Michael Cargill from Texas, who relinquished two bump stocks following the ban, claims the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lacked authority to enact such a measure.
Bump stocks, which were used by the gunman in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting to deadly effect, enable semi-automatic rifles to discharge rounds at a rate akin to machine guns. The ban, rare for a Republican administration, was President Trump's response to the tragedy. Despite initial opposition, the policy was enacted in 2019, after the Supreme Court chose not to intervene.
With Justice Amy Coney Barrett's appointment fortifying the conservative majority, the court's recent June 2022 decision further solidified the Second Amendment's protection of individual gun ownership. This forthcoming session will not only address the bump stock issue but will also examine the extent of the Second Amendment in light of domestic violence cases.
Central to the bump stock debate is the interpretation of the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act's definition of a "machine gun," which the ATF concluded includes devices like bump stocks. Challengers argue that this stretches the legal definition too far and undermines the statutory language.
The Supreme Court's decision to reevaluate the bump stock ban follows a period of varying rulings in federal courts, with both the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts deeming the ban unlawful, a perspective opposed by the Biden administration, which appealed these rulings.
This legal reexamination by the Supreme Court also coincides with the NRA's separate claim that New York state officials coerced companies to sever ties with the gun rights organization, further entwining the court with Second Amendment controversies.
As America grapples with the fallout from the deadliest shooting of the year in Maine, the Supreme Court's willingness to hear the bump stock case underscores the persistent and polarized discourse surrounding gun legislation in the nation.
