In a recent 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks, an accessory for semi-automatic rifles, do not fall under the definition of 'machineguns' as outlined in federal law. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that while bump stocks allow for rapid trigger reengagement, they do not enable a firearm to shoot automatically more than one shot with a single trigger pull.
The case, Garland v. Cargill, questioned whether bump stocks convert rifles into machineguns. The Court determined that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun.
Following a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classified bump stocks as machine guns, prompting legislative efforts to ban them. The Trump administration implemented a ban, which was upheld by the Biden administration.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in dissent, argued that bump stocks should be considered machineguns based on their function of enabling rapid firing. However, the majority opinion emphasized adherence to the statutory definition.
Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner, challenged the ATF's rule on bump stocks, asserting that the agency overstepped its authority without congressional approval. Cargill highlighted the importance of individual freedom in firearm ownership.
Bump stocks, which gained popularity in the early 2000s, modify semi-automatic weapons to increase firing speed by utilizing recoil energy. Despite the ATF estimating over half a million bump stocks in circulation at the time of the ban, owners were required to surrender or destroy them.
