WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court justices showed hesitation in overturning the ban on bump stocks, a firearm accessory that allows semi-automatic rifles to fire more rapidly. The ban was instituted by the Trump administration in response to the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where the perpetrator used bump stock-equipped firearms to unleash deadly fire on a music festival crowd, resulting in 58 fatalities.
Despite the conservative shift of the Supreme Court with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices, both conservative and liberal, seemed to entertain the possibility that the 1934 National Firearms Act, originally intended to regulate machine guns, could encompass bump stocks. The debate during oral arguments centered on the interpretation of the law and the definition of a machine gun.
Justice Elena Kagan raised doubts about how a weapon capable of firing rapidly could not be classified as a machine gun under the law. On the other hand, Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed sympathy towards the arguments presented by a lawyer representing a Texas-based gun owner who owned bump stocks before the ban took effect.
The plaintiffs challenging the ban argued that the government overstepped its authority in banning bump stocks under existing laws. Lower courts have been divided on this issue, with different circuit courts rendering conflicting rulings on the legality of the ban.
While bump stocks remain banned nationwide, their classification as machine guns could change depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Despite the controversy surrounding the issue, bump stocks are currently prohibited in 18 states and Congress could potentially take action in the future.
The Supreme Court’s stance on gun rights has been prominent in recent years, with rulings both supporting and limiting gun regulations. The Court’s decision on the bump stock ban could have significant implications for gun owners and the broader gun control debate in the United States.