The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments related to the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that can enable semi-automatic rifles to be fired at a more rapid pace. This federal ban was instituted under former President Donald Trump’s administration by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Owners of such devices were instructed to either destroy them or surrender them to an ATF office. The ban was part of a review of these devices initiated after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017. The main contention of the challenge is whether the ATF overstepped its authority in 2018 when it reclassified bump stocks as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act.
Several conservative Supreme Court justices have expressed concern about the federal ban on the devices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed apprehension about individuals being subject to prosecution under a ban they may not be aware of. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Congress would more appropriately address the issue. This joins a broader theme of the court’s conservative justices aiming to limit the power of federal agencies in recent years. However, the court’s three liberal justices focused on the comparison between rifles equipped with bump stocks and machine guns in terms of potential misuse.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed out the importance of interpreting laws in a common-sensical way when they aren’t explicitly clear. She mentioned this in the context of the statute that bans machine guns, saying it “comprehends” a weapon that “fires a multitude of shots with a single human action.” Meanwhile, Justice Kavanaugh raised issues about individuals potentially being prosecuted under the ban without even being aware of its existence.
