 "4 reasons why the US Supreme Court’s decision on gun ‘bump stocks’ is so controversial")
The United States Supreme Court recently overturned a federal ban on gun “bump stocks” that was imposed during Donald Trump’s presidency. The decision is controversial, to say the least. It has negative implications for public safety and controlling gun violence in the US.
We explain what bump stocks are, delve into the specifics of the Supreme Court’s decision, and place it in the broader context of the country’s politics and crime landscape.
The Supreme Court’s decision on gun bump stocks
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to invalidate the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire at a rate similar to machine guns. Bump stocks replace the rifle’s standard stock and use the weapon’s recoil to rapidly “bump” the trigger against the shooter’s finger, thus increasing the firing rate.
The decision was penned by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote, “We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’”
The ruling supported a challenge brought by Michael Cargill, a gun shop owner from Texas, who argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had overstepped its authority in classifying bump stocks as machine guns under the National Firearms Act. Thomas stressed that even if bump stocks increase firing speed, they do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because the trigger must be released and re-engaged for each shot manually, not automatically.
The controversy surrounding the decision
Threat of gun violence: The Gun Violence Archive reports that the US has witnessed 251 mass shootings this year alone, with 18,854 gun-related deaths last year. In practical terms, the availability of bump stocks could increase the potential for rapid-fire mass shootings.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsTechnicality over practicality in ensuring public safety: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting along with the court’s liberal justices, argued that the decision undermines public safety. She wrote, “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” She asserted that bump stocks should logically fall under the category of machine guns given their functional similarities. So, the second reason the decision is controversial is that it was made on a technicality rather than practicality in a matter of public safety.
A blow to victims of 2017 Las Vegas shooting: In October 2017, a gunman with multiple bump-stock-equipped rifles unleashed a barrage of over 1,000 rounds at a Las Vegas country music festival, killing 58 people and injuring approximately 850 others. This massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history and prompted the Trump administration to impose the bump stock ban in 2019. According to BBC, Las Vegas shooting victims have been stunned by the decision.
Politicisation: Moreover, the ruling has significant political ramifications as the US approaches the 2024 presidential election. President Joe Biden, a staunch advocate for stricter gun control, condemned the decision, stating, “Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation.” He called on Congress to enact comprehensive gun control measures, including a renewed bump stock ban. In contrast, former President Donald Trump, under whose administration the ban was initially imposed, has always been a more pro-gun stance, aligning with the broader Republican agenda.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision
While the Supreme Court’s ruling overturns the federal ban, its immediate impact may be limited in scope. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have their own laws prohibiting bump stocks, which are expected to remain unaffected. However, four states might see their bans invalidated, depending on how they align with federal definitions and interpretations.
The decision also reflects the broader trend of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expanding gun rights. Previous landmark rulings in 2008, 2010, and 2022 have similarly struck down various gun restrictions, underscoring a judicial philosophy that prioritizes individual gun ownership rights.
President Biden’s call for a comprehensive assault weapon ban highlights the ongoing legislative battle, as gun control remains a deeply polarizing issue.
In a nutshell
The US Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the bump stock ban represents a significant moment in the nation’s contentious gun control debate. While legally grounded in the interpretation of federal statutes, the ruling has profound implications for public safety, political discourse, and future legislative efforts. With America still grappling with its long-standing issue regarding gun ownership and regulation, this decision may influence the trajectory of gun policy and the broader struggle to curb gun violence.
With inputs from agencies
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
