Live Updates: Supreme Court Appears Split Over Bump Stock Ban (2024)

Pinned

Here’s what to know from the arguments.

The case does not turn on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Instead it is one of a number of challenges aimed at curtailing the power of administrative agencies — in this instance, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A decision is expected by late June.

After a gunman stationed on the 32nd floor of a hotel suite opened fire at a country music festival in Las Vegas in 2017, a ban on bump stocks gained political traction, one of the few pieces of gun control legislation to generate significant discussion. Officials at the Justice Department initially said the executive branch could not prohibit the accessory without action by Congress. But it ultimately reversed course and enacted a ban on its own.

At issue is whether a bump stock falls within the legal definition of a machine gun. If the court deems a bump stock can be used to make a gun into a “machine gun,” then it can be prohibited as part of a category heavily regulated by the A.T.F.

During less than two hours of arguments, the justices appeared to struggle to make sense of the mechanics of gun triggers and the value of a ban for gun owners and the wider public.

“Look, intuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to the lawyer representing the government, Brian H. Fletcher. “I mean, it seems like, yes, this is functioning like a machine gun would.”

But she also wondered aloud why Congress had not enacted legislation that more explicitly covered such devices.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, one of the court’s most conservative members, appeared to agree. He said that while he could “certainly understand why these items should be made illegal,” he failed to see why an administrative agency, rather than Congress, should be the one to act.

The remaining conservatives on the court appeared splintered. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is often near the court’s center and a potentially crucial vote in the case, asked few questions, giving little insight into his position.

The three liberal justices seemed to be unified in their support for the government’s decision to ban the device, repeatedly raising hypotheticals about the bump stock and how it enabled semiautomatic guns to fire a “torrent of bullets.”

The Justice Department’s abrupt shift in tack seemed to trouble Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

If the device were “a new thing, obviously, covered by this old statutory language, you would expect the Bush administration and the Obama administration and Senator Feinstein to say, of course, it’s covered, and they didn’t,” Justice Kavanaugh said, singling out Senator Dianne Feinstein, who died in September and was one of the most notable critics of bump stocks. “And that’s reason for pause.”

The challenge was brought by Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner in Texas who sold bump stocks. He is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal advocacy group with financial ties to Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes. The group primarily targets what it considers unlawful uses of administrative power.

Jonathan F. Mitchell, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Mr. Cargill to overturn the bump stock ban, posited that there could be “a valid reason” for allowing bump stocks because they can help people with disabilities or arthritis to shoot.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor quickly retorted, “Why would even a person with arthritis, why would Congress think they needed to shoot 400 to 7- or 800 rounds of ammunition under any circ*mstance?”

Some of the conservative justices, notably Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, raised concerns about the effect of the ban on people who had bought bump stocks before the accessories were prohibited.

Under the federal ban, possession or sale of bump stocks could result in prison time. Those who sold or possessed bump stocks at the time of the ban were asked to turn them in or destroy them.

Justice Alito asked Mr. Fletcher what would happen to people who have owned bump stocks in the years since the ban, including those living in the part of the country where a federal appeals court overturned the ban.

“Can they be prosecuted?” Justice Alito asked.

When Mr. Fletcher answered “probably yes,” Justice Alito quickly responded, “Isn’t that disturbing?”

“That’s going to ensnare a lot of people who are not aware of the legal prohibition,” Justice Kavanaugh said.

Mr. Fletcher’s response, that the agency had completed the requisite steps of notifying the public about the ban, elicited a sarcastic response from Justice Gorsuch.

Most Americans were surely spending their leisure time perusing the Federal Register, the publication where the government notes proposed rules, the justice said. He mockingly added that “gun owners across the country” were certain to “crack it open next to the fire and the dog.”

Mr. Fletcher wryly noted that the ban had “not gone unnoticed” by gun enthusiasts, citing the many legal challenges that followed.

Machine guns were banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which defines the firearm as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The definition was broadened by the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun.

But until the Trump administration’s ban, bump stocks were an exception, considered legal on the grounds that they increased the speed of a gun by sliding the stock back and forth to rapidly pull the trigger, not by “a single function of the trigger” as required for a machine gun.

The justices did not appear to share a common understanding of the bump stock and precisely how it worked. Several appeared to be puzzling through the mechanics. Justice Kagan motioned with her arms and hands as she sought to demonstrate her understanding of how the device transformed a weapon.

Neither did they have a unified interpretation of whether the bump stock changed the function of a trigger on semiautomatic weapons, which are devised to fire a round with each pull of the trigger.

The technical parts of the argument focused on the wording of the law, specifically key terms like “automatically” and “a single function of the trigger.”

Mr. Mitchell argued that the justices should take a narrow reading of the law, meaning it would not apply to bump stocks.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Alito both engaged in extended back-and-forths with the lawyers, pressing them on how to interpret the statute.

Justice Alito appeared supportive of Mr. Mitchell’s argument that the ban overreached because the device itself does not physically touch and move the trigger mechanism in a rifle.

Justice Jackson seemed skeptical of that argument. She appeared more supportive of the government’s argument that the device could be banned because of its practical effect on a gun, sharply increasing the speed and number of bullets it can fire.

Justice Kagan appeared to agree.

“I mean, maybe you could use the device differently, but the entire point of this device is that you exert forward pressure and you have your finger on the trigger, and then a torrent of bullets shoots out,” she said.

How does a mass shooting in Las Vegas connect to this case?

The gambler, Stephen Paddock, 64, fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition over about 11 minutes. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Government officials swiftly called for a ban on bump stocks, with lawmakers, including several leading Republicans, voicing support. Even the National Rifle Association endorsed tighter restrictions.

But there were signs from the start that the politically divisive move could be open to challenges.

Spurred in part by the mounting political pressure, President Donald J. Trump, a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment, vowed to enact a ban.

In response, the Justice Department promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but A.T.F. officials had privately indicated that any ban would likely require action by Congress, where bipartisan action has often stalled.

The A.T.F.’s decision to ban the device amounted to an about-face, raising questions about the extent of its authority to regulate the accessory.

The plaintiff in the case, Michael Cargill, a gun store owner in Austin, was among those outraged by the ban, saying it would open the door to more gun control.

“You give the A.T.F. an inch, they will take a mile,” Mr. Cargill said. “I was shocked that no one was putting up a fight. I said, something has got to be done. You can’t just walk into people’s homes and take something that they legally purchased.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Mitchell also represented former President Donald Trump in his appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court knocking him off the state’s primary ballot.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The lawyer arguing to keep bump stocks legal is a well-known conservative who has represented Trump.

Mr. Mitchell represented the former president in arguments before the Supreme Court last month over whether the former president should remain on the primary ballot in Colorado.

After graduating from the University of Chicago’s law school, Mr. Mitchell clerked for J. Michael Luttig, a federal appeals judge and a prominent conservative voice who has since spoken out forcefully against Mr. Trump, followed by a clerkship at the Supreme Court with Justice Antonin Scalia.

In 2010, Mr. Mitchell was appointed Texas solicitor general, a post he held until 2015. In 2018, he opened his own law firm in Austin, Texas.

He spent years working on legislation in Texas that would essentially outlaw abortion in the state. In 2021, the law, called the Texas Heartbeat Act, was enacted. Its enforcement established a kind of bounty system — ordinary people could file suit against those involved in performing abortions — and incentivized lawsuits by allowing plaintiffs to collect $10,000 and legal fees from those they sued. He also worked on similar laws in others states.

Kitty Bennett and Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The A.T.F.'s change in positions by increasing regulation was not capricious, or sudden. Agency officials were very reluctant to impose any kind of new rules for fear of external political blowback, according to former agency officials I’ve spoken with.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The key terms are “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger.”

Gun owners and gun rights groups sued, saying the law the bureau had relied on, concerning machine guns, did not allow the regulation.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

What is a bump stock and how does it work?

The bump stock allows a weapon to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun. (It is illegal for private citizens to possess fully automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986; ownership of earlier models requires a federal license.)

“The classification of these devices depends on whether they mechanically alter the function of the firearm to fire fully automatic,” Jill Snyder, a special agent in charge at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said at a news conference after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. The gunman used a bump stock and killed 60 people.

“Bump-fire stocks, while simulating automatic fire, do not actually alter the firearm to fire automatically,” Ms. Snyder said at the time. This made them legal under federal law.

In 2018, under President Donald J. Trump, the Justice Department used its authority as part of the executive branch to ban the devices.

Learn more about bump stocks and see how the rate of fire compares here:

The challenge to bump stocks is a way to fight the power of federal agencies.

But that year, a high-stakes gambler stationed on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel opened fire on a country music festival, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds. In his arsenal were a dozen AR-15-style rifles outfitted with the device.

Government officials swiftly called for a ban, eliciting alarm among gun store owners like Mr. Cargill, 54, a gregarious Army veteran who said that the mugging and assault of his grandmother had shaped his views on gun control.

“I was one of the only people who said, hold on, wait a minute,” said Mr. Cargill, who has challenged the ban and is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal advocacy group that primarily challenges what it views as unlawful uses of administrative power. “This is insane that anyone would go along with this. We need to stop this now.”

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Trump administration acted lawfully in enacting a ban that makes it illegal to buy or possess the part. It is not a case that turns on the Second Amendment. Rather, it is one of a number of challenges aimed at limiting the reach of administrative agencies — in this instance, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“During the Trump administration, the bump stock ban cropped up as a rather glaring example of unlawful administrative power,” Philip Hamburger, a founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said in an email. “This rule turned half a million people into felons overnight. That’s not a power that the Constitution gives to administrative agencies — so it deserved a lawsuit.”

In a brief to the court, the solicitor general, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, arguing for the government, said that reversing the ban “threatens significant harm to public safety.”

“Bump stocks are machine guns because they allow a shooter to fire ‘automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger,’” Ms. Prelogar wrote.

The case hinges on whether bump stocks convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns.

The device hooks onto a rifle’s stock, the part of the gun that is held against the shoulder, and harnesses the energy from the gun’s kickback to bump the stock back and forth, allowing the weapon to fire faster.

The bureau enacted the ban in 2018 by clarifying its interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which makes it a crime to make or own a machine gun, saying it extended to bump stocks. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

At issue is whether the A.T.F. overstepped its bounds in enacting a ban without congressional action. A ruling against the agency could undermine its authority to regulate firearms and accessories.

The day before the ban went into effect, Mr. Cargill strolled into the A.T.F. office in Austin, handed over two bump stocks and announced his lawsuit.

Mr. Cargill said he hoped gun owners would pay close attention, even though the case does not center on the Second Amendment.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-gun or anti-gun,” he said. “An agency can’t do this.”

The president of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Mark Chenoweth, said the case fit in with other legal challenges by the group.

“A.T.F. is completely misinterpreting existing law to reach this far-fetched result,” Mr. Chenoweth said in an email, “and it flip-flopped from the interpretation it maintained for over a decade — including during the entirety of the Obama administration.”

Mr. Chenoweth declined to discuss the organization’s donors, but he said that group receives support from “a wide variety of donors.”

“N.C.L.A. is completely independent and not part of any other organization, umbrella group or donor entity,” Mr. Chenoweth wrote.

Federal tax documents show the group has received at least $1 million from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation. Mr. Chenoweth previously served as counsel for legal reform for Koch Industries.

The lead lawyer in the case is Jonathan F. Mitchell, best known for drafting anti-abortion laws that ultimately led the Supreme Court to abolish the constitutional right to the procedure. Mr. Mitchell, who declined to comment, also recently argued on behalf of former President Donald J. Trump to challenge the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove him from the state’s primary ballot.

The lethal potential of a bump stock, which retailed for less than $200 when it first went on the market in 2010, came into startling view in October 2017.

That month, Stephen Paddock, 64, took aim at thousands of concertgoers, firing more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition over about 11 minutes. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Investigators found about a dozen rifles modified with bump stocks in his hotel suite.

The day after, Mr. Cargill’s store sold out of bump stocks.

“Whenever something happens like a shooting incident or something like that and people think the government is going to ban a particular part, people then want to purchase them,” Mr. Cargill said.

Unusual alliances emerged to back a ban on bump stocks, but there were signs from the start that the politically divisive move could be open to challenges.

Lawmakers, including several leading Republicans, signaled openness to prohibiting the device. Even the National Rifle Association endorsed tighter restrictions.

Spurred in part by the mounting political pressure, Mr. Trump, a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment, vowed to enact a ban.

In response, the Justice Department promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but A.T.F. officials had privately indicated that any ban would likely require action by Congress, where bipartisan action has often stalled.

The A.T.F.’s decision to ban the device amounted to an about-face, raising questions about the extent of its authority to regulate the accessory.

Mr. Cargill was among those outraged by the ban, saying it would open the door to more gun control.

“You give the A.T.F. an inch, they will take a mile,” Mr. Cargill said. “I was shocked that no one was putting up a fight. I said, something has got to be done. You can’t just walk into people’s homes and take something that they legally purchased.”

Federal courts wrestled with the legality of the ban, issuing conflicting rulings. The divisions increased the likelihood that the Supreme Court would weigh in.

After a federal trial judge in Texas sided with the government in Mr. Cargill’s case, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Eventually, the full court agreed with Mr. Cargill by a vote of 13 to 3, split along ideological lines.

“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semiautomatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machine gun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote.

Addressing concerns that “bump stocks contribute to firearm deaths,” she added that “it is not our job to determine our nation’s public policy.”

The three dissenting judges, all Democratic appointees, argued that the majority’s reasoning served to “legalize an instrument of mass murder.”