By Matt Alexander @therealazmatt
Washington, D.C. — In a significant ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on “bump stocks,” devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire rapidly, akin to automatic weapons. The 6-3 decision represents a notable development in the ongoing debate over gun control and the limits of executive regulatory power.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority in reinterpreting the statutory definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks. “The statutory language of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not encompass bump stocks,” Gorsuch wrote. “Only Congress has the authority to expand the definition of prohibited firearms.”
The case, Gun Owners of America v. Garland, arose in response to the Trump administration’s directive to the ATF to ban bump stocks following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where the perpetrator used the device to kill 58 people and injure hundreds more. The ATF’s subsequent rule reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, making their possession illegal under federal law.
Joining Gorsuch in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory interpretation principles, stating that “agencies must operate within the bounds set by Congress.”
The dissent, penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, argued that the ATF’s interpretation was reasonable and warranted deference under the Chevron doctrine, which allows agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes. “The ATF’s decision to regulate bump stocks falls squarely within its mandate to protect public safety,” Sotomayor wrote.
Reactions to the ruling were swift and polarized. Gun rights advocates hailed the decision as a victory for Second Amendment protections and limits on executive power. “Today’s decision reaffirms that regulatory agencies cannot rewrite laws,” said Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, the lead plaintiff in the case.
Conversely, gun control advocates expressed dismay, viewing the decision as a setback for efforts to curb gun violence. “This ruling endangers public safety by allowing devices designed to inflict maximum carnage back into circulation,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
The Biden administration, which supported the ban, released a statement expressing disappointment with the ruling and calling on Congress to pass legislation explicitly banning bump stocks. “We remain committed to doing everything in our power to protect Americans from gun violence,” the statement read.
The ruling could have far-reaching implications for future regulatory actions by federal agencies. Legal analysts suggest it may prompt Congress to clarify statutory language in existing laws to prevent similar judicial interpretations.
As the debate over gun control and executive authority continues, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the complexities and contentious nature of regulating firearms in the United States.