Las Vegas, Nevada – Following a tragic mass shooting at an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas that resulted in 58 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the Trump administration took action to ban bump stocks, a device used by the gunman to fire on the crowd. This incident marked the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
The controversy surrounding bump stocks has now reached the Supreme Court, where the legality of the ban is being questioned. The decision of the court could potentially impact federal restrictions on devices that modify semiautomatic rifles to fire at an alarming rate of hundreds of bullets per minute.
One of the few federal government measures to address the increasing frequency of mass killings in the country, the bump stock ban has sparked debates among policymakers, gun rights activists, and legal experts. The case before the Supreme Court involving the ban is just one of many challenging the power of federal agencies and the interpretation of existing laws.
The lawsuit challenging the ban on bump stocks is being spearheaded by Michael Cargill, a U.S. Army veteran and gun store owner in Austin. Cargill argues that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority by reinterpreting regulations on machine guns to include bump stocks.
The debate over bump stocks revolves around the interpretation of a statute dating back to 1986 barring nonmilitary access to machine guns. ATF officials have classified bump stocks as machine guns, citing their ability to convert semiautomatic rifles to fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger, discharging hundreds of bullets per minute.
In response to the government’s interpretation, Cargill’s attorneys dispute the classification, arguing that the rapid fire mechanism of bump stocks is achieved through manual activations of the trigger, not through automation. The case raises questions about the evolution of ATF assessments of bump stock devices over time and the changing interpretations of gun laws.
As the legal battle unfolds, the Supreme Court faces the challenge of determining whether bump stocks fall under the definition of machine guns as outlined in the National Firearms Act. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for gun regulations in the country and set a precedent for future challenges to federal agency authority.
The case, known as Garland v. Cargill, highlights the complex intersection of public safety, gun rights, and the interpretation of laws in the United States. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the bump stock ban will likely have far-reaching consequences for the gun control debate in the country.