The Supreme Court recently ruled against a federal ban on bump stocks, a decision that limits the authority of federal agencies to act independently. The ban, initially proposed by former President Donald Trump in response to a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, aimed to restrict the use of bump stocks, which enable semi-automatic rifles to fire at a rapid rate.
The court's 6-3 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion, emphasized that a bump stock does not transform a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. The ruling overturned a federal rule that made possession of bump stocks a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
The case did not directly involve the Second Amendment but reignited the debate on gun control. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concerns about the potential consequences of the majority's decision.
The legal dispute centered on the classification of bump stocks under a 1930s gun control law that defined a machine gun as a weapon firing multiple rounds with a single trigger function. Both the Trump and Biden administrations, along with gun control advocates, argued that bump stocks fell under this definition.
The ruling highlighted the court's division on the issue, with conservative justices raising questions about retroactive criminalization and congressional approval for such bans. The decision underscored the court's trend of supporting gun rights groups and challenging federal agency actions.
Overall, the Supreme Court's decision on bump stocks reflects a complex legal debate surrounding gun regulations and the interpretation of existing laws.
