The Supreme Court’s impending decision on the legality of bump stocks—a key element used by the gunman in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting—has the potential to significantly alter the landscape of gun regulation in the United States. This case, which pits gun dealer Michael Cargill against the Department of Justice, is not only about the specific device but also sets the stage for future determinations of what constitutes a machine gun.
During the oral arguments heard by the Justices in February, a clear divide was noticeable, reflecting the broader debate on gun control and the Second Amendment rights. The Court is expected to deliver its judgment by June, and the stakes are high. The Trump administration had categorized bump stocks as machine guns, thereby effectively banning them, but gun rights groups have vehemently challenged this interpretation, arguing that bump stocks do not meet the technical definition of machine guns and should not be banned.
The split between different circuit courts on this issue has only heightened the anticipation for a conclusive verdict from the highest court. For instance, the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit found the language of machine gun bans “egregiously ambiguous,” contrasting with the more liberal D.C. Circuit’s critique of the plaintiff’s definition as “unworkable, internally inconsistent, and counterintuitive.”
Should the Supreme Court overturn the bump stock ban, Congress will be under pressure to address the issue of rapid-fire devices. Such devices have been a point of contention, with many arguing they dangerously skirt the line of legality under current machine gun bans. One such example is the “hellfire” trigger, designed to significantly increase the rate of fire of firearms like the AR-15. The aftermath of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, has brought increased scrutiny to these devices, particularly when it was revealed the shooter attempted to use a hellfire trigger.
In anticipation of the Court’s decision, lawmakers like Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) have sought proactive measures. A letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), co-signed by 67 members of Congress, urged the introduction of legislation to close what they perceive as loopholes that allow for rapid-fire devices.
The core of the debate in front of the Supreme Court is a nearly century-old interpretation of what constitutes a “single function of the trigger,” a phrase pivotal in defining machine guns under the law. Gun control advocates stress that the heart of the matter is the potential for increased lethality and the risk to public safety. As Brady’s chief legal officer Douglas Letter put it, Congress’s intent in passing machine gun bans was “to make these unbelievably dangerous weapons not a part of our civilian society.”
Meanwhile, the plaintiff Cargill underscores the importance of sticking to the letter of the law, contending that if a firearm discharges one round per trigger pull, it should be classified as semiautomatic, not a machine gun. The outcome of this case has implications far beyond bump stocks; it will inform how the nation addresses a wide range of rapid-fire devices, potentially giving rise to a flourishing market of such mechanisms should the ruling favor the plaintiff.
Relevant articles:
– Bump stock ruling could trigger booming rapid-fire marketplace, The Hill, 05/22/2024
Glad you enjoyed above story, be sure to follow TrendyDigests on Microsoft Start.