In a significant triumph for gun owners, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal rule that banned bump stocks, an accessory that came under scrutiny after being used in a deadly 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The court, in a 6-3 decision, determined that this rule was an overreach of federal authority and an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, clarified that bump stocks do not transform a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun, asserting, “A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does. Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every ‘function of the trigger.’”
The ruling, which aligns with the conservative justices’ interpretation of gun rights, is a pivotal moment where gun ownership and regulatory bounds are sharply defined.
The minority opinion, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, showed a divide within the court, particularly among its liberal justices who viewed the regulation as a necessary step in response to gun violence. Despite the dissent, the majority’s decision is seen as a validation for many gun rights advocates who have long argued that bump stocks do not inherently increase a firearm’s lethality beyond the capability of the shooter’s own speed and skill.
The case was brought to the forefront by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner who boldly challenged the federal ban after complying with it by surrendering two bump stocks he owned before suing to reclaim them. His legal battle highlights the ongoing national debate over the limits of gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This Supreme Court ruling could ignite a series of challenges to similar bans at the state level, signaling a potential reevaluation of gun laws across the country. It also illustrates the court’s significant conservative influence following the appointment of three justices by former President Donald Trump, a detail that has reshaped the judiciary’s approach to a range of issues, including gun rights and abortion.
The justices’ decision comes in the wake of another surprising ruling regarding a Biden-era FDA regulation allowing the mail distribution of an abortion drug, which saw an unexpected unanimous decision penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another Trump appointee. Kavanaugh stated, “Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”
"*" indicates required fields
