What the bump stock ban could mean for guns in the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a federal ban on bump stocks, the devices that can attach to a semi-automatic rifle to make it fire as fast as a machine gun -- potentially hundreds of rounds a minute.
Machine guns have been effectively banned for most people since the 1930s, but there have been doubts about whether that ban applies to attachments that can make legal guns shoot as fast as a machine gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determines that, and over the years the agency went back and forth over whether to ban bump stocks. But in 2017, a man using bump stocks committed the deadliest gun massacre in modern American history, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds at a Las Vegas concert. After that mass shooting, many bump stock owners saw a ban coming. The Trump Administration then indeed moved to ban bump stocks, a restriction that took effect in 2019.
What was the court's reasoning to lift that ban?
It all comes down to the law's definition of machine gun, which says it's a gun that fires multiple rounds with "a single function of the trigger." That word "function" is key here, as it's not the same as a pull of the trigger.
With a bump stock, you pull the trigger once, holding it, bracing the stock against your shoulder while the recoil moves the trigger for you very rapidly, firing those rounds at machine-gun speeds; one pull, but multiple trigger functions.
What the court said today is that's a big enough difference that the ATF was wrong to call a bump stock a "machine gun" as defined by the law.
That seems to be a very technical distinction. Could this end up permitting other kinds of gun attachments?
Probably not directly because it's so narrowly focused on the mechanics of bump stocks, so it wouldn't apply to, for instance, Glock switches, which are a different kind of illegal device that allows a handgun to shoot like an automatic, according to Adam Skaggs, chief counsel with Giffords Law, a gun safety group. He is, however, worried about the Supreme Court's broader approach here.
"I think, though, the fact that there are six justices that are willing to cavalierly toss aside an incredibly important public safety regulation by the ATF suggests they may look at other regulations by the ATF with skepticism," he says.
What about gun rights lawyers? Do they think this ruling will affect other firearms restrictions?
Attorney Matt Larosiere, who helped bring a similar challenge to the bump stock ban, agrees this shouldn't affect the ban on Glock switches, or auto sears, but he thinks it could affect other ATF regulations, such as the ban on guns without serial numbers, known as "ghost guns."
"What this case is about isn't so much the definition of machine guns, but it's about how far outside the lines the Supreme Court is willing to allow the regulatory agencies to draw. And I think what this case is saying is, 'not very far.'"
What about states that already have bump stock bans in place?
At least 15 states and the District of Columbia prohibit bump stocks. This isn't a Second Amendment ruling, so it doesn't overturn state bans. The Supreme Court says Congress, if it chooses, could always pass a law changing the definition of machine guns to include bump stocks.
Transcript
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a federal ban on bump stocks today. Those are the devices that can attach to a semi-automatic rifle to make it fire as fast as a machine gun, potentially hundreds of rounds a minute. And NPR's Martin Kaste joins us to talk about the implications of this ruling. Hey, Martin.
MARTIN KASTE, BYLINE: Hi, Mary Louise.
KELLY: OK. I just want to lay out the basics. This federal ban, the one that the court has just overturned, when and how did it come about?
KASTE: Well, since the '30s, machine guns have been so tightly regulated by the Feds that they're effectively banned for most people. But there's been doubt about whether those restrictions apply to attachments, things that you can attach to a legal gun that would make it shoot as fast as a banned machine gun. And the agency making that call has been the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And over the years, it went back-and-forth about whether the machine gun restrictions apply to bump stocks. But then, as we remember in 2017 in Las Vegas, a man using bump stocks committed the deadliest gun massacre in modern American history. And the Trump administration then moved to ban the devices outright, and that ban took effect in 2019.
KELLY: What was the court's reasoning here to lift that ban?
KASTE: Well, it comes down to the law's definition of a machine gun. Now, the law says it's a gun that fires multiple rounds with, quote, "a single function of the trigger" - not a single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger. With a bump stock, you pull the trigger just once holding it, bracing the stock against your shoulder while the recoil of the rifle moves that trigger for you really fast, firing the rounds that quickly. And so you have one trigger pull but multiple trigger functions. The court said today that that's a big enough difference that the ATF was wrong to call bump stock a machine gun as defined by the law.
KELLY: That seems to be a very technical distinction that they're drawing. Could this end up allowing other kind of banned gun attachments?
KASTE: Well, probably not directly because this is so narrowly focused on the specific mechanics of bump stocks. So it probably wouldn't apply, for instance, to Glock switches. You may have heard those are these illegal devices, a different device that allows a handgun to shoot like an automatic. At least that's the opinion of Adam Skaggs. He's the chief counsel with Giffords Law, a gun safety group. But he did tell me he's worried about the court's broader approach in this decision.
ADAM SKAGGS: I think, though, the fact that there are six justices willing to cavalierly throw aside an incredibly important public safety regulation by ATF suggests they may look at other actions by ATF with skepticism.
KELLY: Martin, what about folks on the other side, gun rights advocates, lawyers? Do they think this ruling will affect other firearms restrictions?
KASTE: Well, this morning, I asked that to Matt Larosiere about - talking about this. He helped to bring a similar challenge to the bump stock ban. He was actually quite thrilled this morning when he was reading Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion. And he saw that the opinion included illustrations of trigger mechanisms that he'd put in one of his briefs. Larosiere agrees that this should probably not affect the ban on Glock switches, but he thinks it might affect other ATF regulations such as bans on guns that are made from kits and don't have serial numbers, sometimes known as ghost guns.
MATT LAROSIERE: What this case is about isn't so much about the definition of machine gun, but it's about how far outside of the lines that the Supreme Court is willing to allow regulatory agencies to draw. And I think what this case is saying is not very far.
KELLY: OK, reporting there from NPR's Martin Kaste. Thanks so much.
KASTE: You're welcome. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
300x250 Ad
300x250 Ad