"ATF Exceeded Its Statutory Authority": Supreme Court Rules Bump Stock Ban Is Unconstitutional

On Friday, the Supreme Court invalidated the Trump administration's bump-stock rule, which the Biden administration defended, in a 6-3 vote authored by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. 

"ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" under §5845(b)," the Supreme Court said in the Garland v. Cargill case, otherwise known as the bump stock case.

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion:

Congress has long restricted access to "'machinegun[s],'" a category of firearms defined by the ability to "shoot, automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger." 26 U. S. C. §5845(b); see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o). Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a "machinegun." We hold that it does not and therefore affirm.

The Garland v. Cargill lawsuit was filed by Texas gun dealer Michael Cargill, who owned several bump stocks before the ban took effect and later handed them over to the government.

As a reminder, bump stocks are not machine guns—something we've reiterated over the years. These devices only function by using the recoil energy after the trigger is pulled, allowing the operator to fire hundreds of rounds. 

Let's also remind readers where this non-sense bump stock rule began... 

Cargill has released a statement on X: 

Here's what X users are saying:

The ruling today ends the nationwide ban on bump stocks. It's also a huge win for gun rights advocates. 

... 3 - 2 - 1. Anti-gunners will have a meltdown today. 

*   *   * 

Read Here: