Supreme Court To Review Trump-Era 'Bump Stock' Ban
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday afternoon to review the legality of a ban on bump stocks, an attachment that enables semiautomatic rifles to shoot faster, which was enacted during the Trump administration. The case is called Cargill v Garland.
The case centers around the ban on bump stocks. Devices that can be used to "bump fire" semiautomatic rifles. It is important to note that this "bump fire" can also be achieved with a belt loop.
Federal officials have estimated that as many as 520,000 bump stocks were sold nationwide before owners were ordered by the DOJ to surrender them under the ATF rule.
As The Epoch Times' Jack Phillips writes, Federal appeals courts have come to different decisions on whether the ATF regulation defining a bump stock as a machine gun accords with federal law.
In 2010, under the Obama administration, the agency found that a bump stock should not be classified as a machine gun and therefore should not be banned under federal law.
A 1986 federal law prohibits Americans from owning fully automatic weapons or parts that are used to convert other firearms into automatic weapons, although some exceptions were made to fully automatic firearms produced before May 1986. The ATF in 2018 said that bump stocks fall under the regulation of the 1986 law.
The ATF policy went into effect in 2019 after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue an order to block it. In October 2022, the U.S. high court turned away two previous cases brought by gun rights advocates challenging the ban.
Cargill v Garland could become a landmark case regarding government agencies' ability to use existing laws to issue regulations. ATF used the 1934 National Firearms Act to issue the regulation on bump stocks.
Here's what X users are saying:
The Supreme Court just accepted review of the case challenging Trump’s bumpstock ban. This case could completely wipe out the ATF’s ability to create law and subvert congress, which would be a massive win for the 2A. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
— Alec 🌲🏔🌴 (@alecmartin016) November 3, 2023
The bumpstock ban case is about whether the ATF's interpretation of the definition of a "machinegun" is correct or whether the ban is an overreach of executive agency power. The NRA case is about the First Amendment.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 3, 2023
Should the verdict in this case favor Cargill, it may influence a number of firearms-related regulatory policies under the Biden administration going forward.
Erich Pratt, senior vice president at Gun Owners of America, said:
"This is very exciting news and we congratulate Michael Cargill on this victory.
GOA and GOF are proud to have been able to help create a circuit split with our case making it more compelling for the high court to finally overrule this unconstitutional ATF overreach. We look forward to supporting Michael in his case as it heads to the Supreme Court."
The High Court will hear the challenge early next year, with a decision on the case not expected to be rendered by the top court until early summer.
