Supreme Court Set to Hear Case on Bump Stocks and Government Overreach
The controversial issue of bump stocks has once again made its way to the Supreme Court, reigniting the debate over government overreach and gun control. The case, brought forward by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner, challenges the Trump-era regulation that treats bump stocks as machine guns and prohibits Americans from owning them. The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter will not only impact the future of bump stocks but also has broader implications for the power of federal agencies.
Bump stocks are devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire several hundred rounds per minute, effectively mimicking automatic firing. The ban on these devices was a direct response to the tragic 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman armed with semi-automatic rifles and bump stocks killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. The ban aimed to prevent such devastating incidents in the future.
However, Cargill argues that the ban represents an infringement on individual rights and sets a dangerous precedent of government overreach. “It’s the principle of it,” he asserts, emphasizing that the floodgates of government interference should never have been opened. Cargill’s case challenges not only the ban but also questions the definition of a machine gun under the law.
The 1930s gun control law was initially enacted to target notorious gangsters like Al Capone and John Dillinger. Over the years, it has been amended several times, ultimately prohibiting Americans from possessing or transferring machine guns in most circumstances. The law defines a machine gun as a weapon that fires more than one round with a single function of the trigger. Both the Trump and Biden administrations argue that bump stocks fall under this definition and should be classified as machine guns.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reclassified bump stocks in 2018, making their possession a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The ATF estimated that approximately 520,000 bump stocks were sold between 2010 and 2018. Gun control groups and advocates, such as the Giffords Law Center, support the ban, asserting that machine guns are the weapon of choice for those seeking to commit mass murder.
However, opponents of the ban, including Cargill’s legal team, argue that the ATF overstepped its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. They contend that if Congress had enacted a law banning these devices, they would not have filed a lawsuit. Instead, they claim that the ATF exceeded its authority by making the decision independently, without involving the legislative branch.
This case brings to light a broader issue concerning the power of federal agencies and their ability to approve federal regulations. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority will have an opportunity to address this issue and potentially limit the authority of federal agencies. It is part of a series of cases this year that question the extent of agency power.
The dispute over bump stocks has garnered support from prominent gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), who argue that this case goes beyond the Second Amendment. They believe that it has implications for individual freedoms and could prevent millions of Americans from becoming felons overnight. Conversely, gun control groups such as the Giffords Law Center and Everytown for Gun Safety side with the government, emphasizing the need to prioritize public safety over individual rights.
While the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on this contentious issue, it is important to note that the case does not directly challenge the Second Amendment. Instead, it focuses on interpreting what Congress intended when they included the term “machine gun” in the law. The outcome of this case will shape not only the future of bump stocks but also the balance of power between federal agencies and Congress. As the nation continues to grapple with mass shootings and gun violence, the Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly have a lasting impact.
