The Supreme Court agreed on Friday afternoon to review the legality of a ban on bump stocks, an attachment that enables semiautomatic rifles to shoot faster, which was enacted during the Trump administration. The case is called Cargill v Garland.
The case centers around the ban on bump stocks. Devices that can be used to "bump fire" semiautomatic rifles. It is important to note that this "bump fire" can also be achieved with a belt loop.
Federal appeals courts have come to different conclusions on whether bump stocks themselves meet the legal definition of a "machine gun." Even the ATF concluded for years that bump stocks were not machine guns under the law until 2019, when the agency switched course under the direction of the Trump administration.
Cargill v Garland could become a landmark case regarding government agencies' ability to use existing laws to issue regulations. ATF used the 1934 National Firearms Act to issue the regulation on bump stocks.
Here's what X users are saying:
The Supreme Court just accepted review of the case challenging Trump’s bumpstock ban. This case could completely wipe out the ATF’s ability to create law and subvert congress, which would be a massive win for the 2A. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
— Alec 🌲🏔🌴 (@alecmartin016) November 3, 2023
The bumpstock ban case is about whether the ATF's interpretation of the definition of a "machinegun" is correct or whether the ban is an overreach of executive agency power. The NRA case is about the First Amendment.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 3, 2023
Should the verdict in this case favor Cargill, it may influence a number of firearms-related regulatory policies under the Biden administration going forward.
The High Court will hear the challenge early next year.
