By: Maddy Goldman
Edited by: Isabella Canales and Claire Quan
Gun rights have long been a topic of debate in the United States. While the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms in the 1700s, technology has since rapidly developed. The creation of new weapons, necessitated new legislation limiting the Second Amendment. One major limitation was placed on the legality of machine guns. Since they are much deadlier than regular, non-automatic guns, machine guns are banned in the United States. While this may seem like a relatively straightforward prohibition, the line can easily become blurred. The invention of a “bump stock” device has increasingly blurred the lines between gun rights and ownership, calling for intervention by the Supreme Court.
On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock opened fire at a country music festival in Las Vegas. [1] In the span of only a few minutes, Paddock killed over 50 people. [2] He was able to cause such devastating harm by using a device known as a “bump stock.” A bump stock can be placed onto any gun, essentially endowing it with machine gun-like capabilities: it “causes a gun’s trigger to buck against the shooter’s finger while the gun’s recoil makes it jerk back and forth, ‘bumping’ the trigger and causing it to fire again and again.” [4] Many were outraged at the legality of such a device and urgently called for gun reform. By December 2018, the Trump Administration’s Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) put into place a federal ban on the possession of bump stocks. That is to say, anyone who owned a bump stock in the United States either had to give it up to the government or effectively destroy it. [5] This decision was different from earlier ones, as it ruled that all bump stocks should be considered machine guns, thereby rendering them illegal. [6]
When banning these devices, the Trump administration looked to a twentieth-century federal law that made the ownership of “machine guns” illegal. [7] This law, Section 922(o)(1), states that it is “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.” [8] The Trump administration thus decided that bump stocks count as machine guns – and therefore, should be banned federally. The 2018 ban thus made the 20th century ban more extreme, classifying a bump stock as a machine gun.
However, recently, there have been challenges to this decision, with some, such as Michael Cargill, claiming that bump stocks should be legal. Even though bump stocks are currently banned federally, courts across the country now disagree about whether bump stocks should count as machine guns, and whether or not they should be banned.
Michael Cargill owned two bump stocks before their banning. [9] When the ATF put this ban (as discussed earlier) on bump stocks in 2018, Cargill was forced to surrender them to the government. But, rather than surrender them and move on, Cargill chose to sue the ATF. His argument focused on the issue of separation of powers. [10] He claimed that the ATF does not have the power to make such large decisions regarding gun rights. To him, the ATF did nothing more than take away over 100 million dollars of property from American bump stock owners. [11]
However, Cargill’s challenging of the ban has brought up many additional disagreements regarding the banning of bump stocks. This disagreement can be seen in the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts, where it was argued that bump stocks should not be prohibited under federal law. [12] The courts claimed that the definition of a machine gun does not include bump stocks. This definition, as seen in federal laws, states that any gun capable of shooting multiple bullets “automatically” and by one trigger function counts as a machine gun. [13] To them, bump stocks are merely an accessory, not a gun, and thus do not fit the category.
In addition to arguing that a bump stock does not count as a machine gun under this definition, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the “rule of lenity” applies in this case. [14] The “rule of lenity” states that courts must apply any ambiguous criminal laws in such a way that favors the defendants. [15] As mentioned earlier, bump stocks were banned under Section 922(o)(1), which makes it illegal to own a machine gun. The 2018 ban thus classified bump stocks as machine guns, making them illegal under the same law (Section 922(o)(1)). However, the Sixth Circuit argues that the federal firearm law which prohibits machine guns, does not “clearly and unambiguously prohibit bump stocks.”[16] In other words, it is ambiguous whether a bump stock classifies as a machine gun, thus calling for the “rule of lenity” to be applied. The court argues that now, in Cargill v. Garland, the Supreme Court must decide the statute in favor of the defendant, which in this case, would mean deciding that bump stocks are, in fact, legal.
Meanwhile, other courts, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit strongly disagreed. It believed the ban to be necessary and legal and continued to uphold the regulation interpreting Section 922(o)(1) as including a bump stock. [17] To the D.C. Circuit, a bump stock does fit under the definition. Deciding that a bump stock is still a “self-regulating mechanism that allows the shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger,” the court said they can therefore classify it as a “machine gun.” [18]
It is evident that there has been much disagreement regarding what to do with the legality of bump stocks. Due to these court disagreements, as well as opposition on the basis of separation of powers and the ambiguity of the National Firearms Act, the Biden Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to take up an appeal on the Cargill case. [19]
Those in favor of the ban hope that the court finds bump stocks to count as machine guns and that their possession should be illegal everywhere in the United States. Meanwhile, those who want the ban to be lifted are hoping that, in their reconsideration of various gun laws, the court finds the ATF to have made a decision that was far beyond its authority.
It is interesting to observe who is on the Supreme Court and how this could affect this decision. Had these gun rights cases been brought to the Supreme Court before Donald Trump’s presidency, the Supreme Court would likely have ruled that bump stocks must be banned. However, now that the Supreme Court is significantly more right-leaning, there is a high chance they rule against the ban, making bump stocks legal.
In fact, if bump stocks are decided to be legal, it could be difficult to ever ban them again. [20] Due to a previous ruling in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, it was essentially decided that the more commonly a weapon is used, the more protection it will receive from the Second Amendment. [21] If the Supreme Court allows for the possession of bump stocks, more and more gun owners would likely purchase them, thereby making them increasingly common. Once this occurs, it could be incredibly difficult to go beyond the 2022 ruling.
While no final decision has been made yet, this Supreme Court case offers up many questions. What counts as a machine gun? What happens if the Supreme Court rules bump stocks to be legal? Do bump stocks fit into a category of their own? Should a new law be made to specifically regulate and outlaw them? These are all questions that will be answered with time. For now, the case offers an opportunity for nuanced debate regarding gun rights, the Second Amendment, and the interpretation of firearm laws.
Notes:
1. Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’” NBC News, November 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466
2. Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’” NBC News, November 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466
3. Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’” NBC News, November 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466
4. Ian Millhiser, “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” Vox, November 3, 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/3/23943399/supreme-court-automatic-weapons-bump-stocks-gun-policy
5. “Bump Stocks,” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
6. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
7. Ian Millhiser, “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” Vox, November 3, 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/3/23943399/supreme-court-automatic-weapons-bump-stocks-gun-policy
8. “18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts,” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
9. Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’” NBC News, November 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466
10. Ariane de Vogue, “Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban,” CNN, November 3, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html
11. Ariane de Vogue, “Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban,” CNN, November 3, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html
12. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
13. Kalvis Golde, “Government seeks review of federal gun regulations on domestic abusers, bump stocks,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/government-seeks-review-of-federal-gun-regulations-on-domestic-abusers-bump-stocks/
14. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
15. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
16. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
17. Kalvis Golde, “Government seeks review of federal gun regulations on domestic abusers, bump stocks,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/government-seeks-review-of-federal-gun-regulations-on-domestic-abusers-bump-stocks/
18. Amy Howe, “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
19. Ariane de Vogue, “Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban,” CNN, November 3, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html
20. Ian Millhiser, “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” Vox, November 3, 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/3/23943399/supreme-court-automatic-weapons-bump-stocks-gun-policy
21. Ian Millhiser, “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” Vox, November 3, 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/3/23943399/supreme-court-automatic-weapons-bump-stocks-gun-policy
Bibliography:
Barlow, Rich. “Your Bacon Shouldn't Be the Product of Animal Cruelty, Says Animal Rights Activist and LAW Alum.” Boston University, December 1, 2022. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/supreme-court-case-banning-inhumane-confinement/.
“Bump Stocks,” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
Calamur, Krishnadev. “Supreme Court to review Trump-era gun rule banning bump stocks,” NPR, November 3, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210516804/supreme-court-bump-stocks
De Vogue, Ariane. “Supreme Court to consider challenge to federal bump stock ban,” CNN, November 3, 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks/index.html
“Garland V. Cargil,” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-976
Golde, Kalvis. “Government seeks review of federal gun regulations on domestic abusers, bump stocks,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/04/government-seeks-review-of-federal-gun-regulations-on-domestic-abusers-bump-stocks/
Howe, Amy. “Justices take up bump stock dispute,” SCOTUSblog, November 3, 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-take-up-bump-stock-dispute/
Hurley, Lawrence. “Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks.’” NBC News, November 3, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466
“18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts,” Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Millhiser, Ian. “The Supreme Court will hear a case that could effectively legalize automatic weapons,” Vox, November 3, 2023, https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/3/23943399/supreme-court-automatic-weapons-bump-stocks-gun-policy
