The ATF's Trump-era ban on bump stocks was drop-kicked by a 6-3 majority opinion of the nation's highest court last week, but anti-gun advocates are stirring to reboot it as something worse. 
 

The Case

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a very technical 22-page opinion on the case of Garland v. Cargill handed down on June 17, repudiated the ATF's controversial rule that arbitrarily classified bump stock devices as illegal machine guns. The 2018 rule affected upward of 500,000 bump stock owners and garnered over 80,000 public comments, fueled by those on both sides of the hot-button issue. 

Thomas held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority and then carefully laid out, along with a series of diagrams, how a trigger works in an AR platform holding to the National Firearm Act's guideline for machine guns being capable of "automatically" firing multiple bullets "by a single function of the trigger." 

Thomas also pointed out that guns like the Ithaca 37 pump-action shotgun are capable of firing multiple shots in certain circumstances but are not considered machine guns by the ATF, nor are common semi-auto firearms when they are bump-fired sans a bump stock. "As with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot," during bump fire, noted Thomas. 

ATF argues that a shooter using a bump stock must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots. This initial trigger pull sets off a sequence – fire, recoil, bump, fire – that allows the weapon to continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary finger. Moreover, ATF’s position is logically inconsistent because its reasoning would also mean that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is capable of firing more than one shot by a "single function of the trigger." Yet, ATF agrees that is not the case. ATF’s argument is thus at odds with itself.

Cargill's case was brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, who described the victory as not just about bump stocks, but the underlying principle that agencies may not regulate beyond their statutory authorization.

“NCLA is delighted that the Court has vindicated our client’s position that ATF does not have the power to rewrite criminal laws," said NCLA President Mark Chenoweth in an email to Guns.com. "The statute Congress passed did not ban bump stocks, and ATF does not have the power to do so on its own. This result is completely consistent with the Constitution’s assignment of all legislative power to Congress. Bump-stock opponents should direct any views at Congress, not the Court, which faithfully applied the statute in front of it."

Guns.com spoke to Mr. Cargill earlier this year at SHOT Show, when the case was still in play. 

Pearl Clutching and Sweeping Bans in Response

Within minutes of the Cargill ruling becoming public, the White House and Democratic National Committee issued hyperbolic statements packed with all the standard tropes ("gun violence epidemic," the gun lobby," "common sense gun safety legislation," "assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," "weapons of war," crisis of gun violence," "NRA-pandering," et. al) ending with President Biden calling on lawmakers to send him a prohibition on the now legal-bump stock devices – as well as millions of common semi-auto firearms. 

"I call on Congress to ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban, and take additional action to save lives – send me a bill and I will sign it immediately," said Biden. 

Dems on Capitol Hill in both the House and Senate dutifully mobilized to introduce a ban, vehemently hyped by such anti-gun champions as U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) who un-apologetically decreed on the Senate floor that, "The only reason you need a bump stock is to engage in mass murder."

However, while fence-sitters like U.S. Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) joined the nominally bipartisan Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts (BUMP) Act, which would outlaw any device that "increases the rate of fire" of a semi-automatic firearm, it failed to pass an easy unanimous consent vote this Tuesday. The bill stalled when Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska objected. 

Ricketts pointed out that the vague language of the proposal had little to do with bump stocks, and could potentially ban all sorts of common gun parts. 

"This bill is about banning as many firearms accessories as possible and giving ATF broad authority to ban most semi-automatic firearms," said Ricketts. "It’s an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners."

Meanwhile, no less than 15 states have adopted local bans on bump stocks since 2018, which, for now at least, still stand.