The 2018 lawsuit challenging the ATF’s reclassification of bump stocks from plastic accessories to machine guns has finally made its way to a Supreme Court decision. While some laws may take over a century to be struck down, this one only took six years. Practically lightening speed!
And yes, you read that right. The ATF’s rule has been overturned. Bump stocks are again legal accessories. (Unless Congress acts to the contrary.)
Why? The Mechanical Function of the Bump Stock
The Supreme Court took the time to delve into the functioning of bump stocks and the mechanics behind them. The Court was not satisfied with a simple “it shoots too fast” logic. (Well, at least not the majority of the Court.) Instead, much ink is spilled understanding, and explaining, exactly what happens in the firing sequence.
The end understanding is that a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock does not “shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Multi-function of the Trigger
First the court determined that a bump stock “cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’” The “shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot.” Thus, “any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct ‘function of the trigger.’”
This is a critical difference and one known by the ATF. In fact, for ten years, as the Court observed, the ATF classified bump stocks as mere accessories and not machine guns. The about face came after a mass shooting employing bump stocks and the political pressure to do something. However, what the ATF did was abuse the definition of a machine gun to include something that was not a machine gun. This the Court will not allow.
Automatically
The Court could have stopped with the analysis above about the operation of the trigger. This would be correct and likely sufficient to differentiate a bump stock from the definition of a machine gun. However, the Court observed a second physical difference between bump stocks and the definition of machine gun, namely that a semi-automatic firearm with a bump stock does not fire automatically even if there was a single pull of a trigger. Garland v. Cargill (“Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’ it would not do so ‘automatically.’”).
The Court observed that Congress “specifies the precise action that must ‘automatically’ cause a weapon to fire ‘more than one shot’ –a ‘single function of the trigger.’” “If something more than “a single function of the trigger” is required to fire multiple shots, the weapon does not satisfy the statutory definition.”
What else is required of a bump stock to fire ‘automatically’? “A shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his nontrigger hand. . . Without this ongoing manual input, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock will not fire multiple shots.”
“Thus, firing multiple shots requires engaging the trigger one time – and then some.” The “statutory definition of ‘machinegun’ does not include a firearm that shoots more than one round ‘automatically’ by a single pull of the trigger AND THEN SOME.” (emphasis all in original.) The action of having to push the stock forward is the ‘and then some’. This is different than a continual pull on the trigger. “Simply pressing and holding the trigger down on a fully automatic rifle is not manual input in addition to a trigger’s function – it is what causes the trigger to function in the first place.” “Pushing forward on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not part of functioning the trigger. After all, pushing on the front grip will not cause the weapon to fire unless the shooter also engages the trigger with his other hand.”
Thus, the Court concludes, the additional mechanical input necessary to achieve a rapid rate of fire excludes this firearm from the definition of a machine gun.
The Dissent
The Court’s three progressive justices of course dissent. Their argument is basically two fold: i) a single consistent action is all that is necessary to achieve rapid fire from a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock, and ii) Congress would have found a machine gun indistinguishable from a semi-automatic with bump stock and therefore must have meant to include it in their definition.
The Court of course rejects both of the dissent’s argument. Congress was too specific to disregard their definition and attempt to include more firearms than strictly meets the definition, and achieving a rapid rate of fire by a consistent action by the user is not the definition of machine gun.
Going Forward
The Court, including the dissent, notes that Congress is free to redefine machine gun to include bump stocks. In fact, the dissent calls for this. However, until that happens, bump stocks are legal Federally. Of course state laws may vary.
The Court mentions in passing forced reset triggers, but this decision does not pass judgment on such devices. Nor does the decision address mechanical bump stocks where internal springs eliminate the need for forward pressure from the shooter’s non trigger hand. Would these two devices qualify as machine guns? Maybe for the forced reset triggers, and unlikely for the mechanical bump stocks since the trigger is still functioning only once per a shot.
This case is a win for originalism and strict enforcement of the text. The Court did not allow a bureaucracy to grow in scope without a change in the law. It also brings back to the market, just in time for July 4th, a controversial firearm accessory. Love them, hate them, consider them a waste of ammunition, bump stocks are not machine guns!