The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) does not have the authority to ban bump stocks, concluding that the firearm accessory cannot be considered a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.

Landmark Ruling: Court's Decision

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit's en banc January 2023 decision that struck down the ATF's rule banning bump stocks. The circuit court had ruled in favor of firearms instructor Michael Cargill, determining that a bump stock, which increases the firing rate of a semiautomatic rifle, cannot be classified as a "machine gun" under federal law. As a result, the ATF was deemed to lack the authority to ban bump stocks.

"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," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Bump Stocks Ban Overturning : ATF's Authority Questioned

The crux of the case revolved around whether the ATF had the authority to redefine a machine gun and implement a rule banning bump stocks. Cargill's attorneys argued that the ATF's decision was politically motivated, driven by then-President Donald Trump, following the 2017 mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, where the shooter used a bump stock.

The ATF's ban, enacted in March 2019, was scrutinized in Justice Thomas' detailed majority opinion, which dissected the trigger mechanics of semiautomatic AR-15-type firearms. Thomas concluded that "a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot each time the shooter engages the trigger — with or without a bump stock," and therefore, cannot be considered a machine gun.

Dissenting Opinion: Safety Concerns

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent, argued that the Supreme Court's decision effectively puts machine guns "back in civilian hands" by overturning the bump stocks ban.

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck," she stated. Sotomayor contended that a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

Sotomayor criticized the majority for focusing too narrowly on the mechanics of bump stocks and neglecting the "human act of the shooter's initial pull" of the trigger.

Bump Stocks Ban Overturning : Calls for Legislative Action

Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, emphasized that it is up to Congress to ban bump stocks. Mark Chenoweth, an attorney for Cargill, praised the court's decision, asserting that the ATF does not have the power to rewrite criminal laws.

President Joe Biden expressed his readiness to sign a bill banning bump stocks if Congress were to pass such legislation. Biden urged Congress to take comprehensive action to save lives, including banning bump stocks and assault weapons.

Reactions from Advocates and Opponents

The ruling drew sharp criticism from gun control advocates. Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center, called the decision "reckless and dangerous," accusing the justices of siding with the gun lobby over public safety.

Cargill was represented by Richard Samp and Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance and Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC. The government was represented by Elizabeth Prelogar, Brian Boynton, Matthew Guarnieri, Mark Stern, Michael Raab, Abby Wright, and Brad Hinshelwood of the U.S. Department of Justice.