Introduction
On June 14, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision in the case of Garland v. Cargill, striking down the federal ban on bump stocks. The Supreme Court bump stock decision, coming in at a 6-3 ruling, marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over firearm regulations in the United States.
Background of the Case
Bump stocks are attachments that enable semi-automatic rifles to fire at speeds comparable to automatic weapons, releasing hundreds of rounds per minute. The national debate over these devices intensified after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a gunman used bump stocks to perpetrate the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, resulting in 60 deaths and over 500 injuries. In response, the Trump administration in 2018 reclassified bump stocks as machine guns, mandating their destruction or surrender to the ATF—a reversal from earlier interpretations that did not uniformly classify bump stocks as machine guns.
The Case
Michael Cargill, a U.S. Army veteran and Austin gun store owner, became a central figure in challenging this rule after surrendering two bump stocks. His lawsuit, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit supported, led to the Supreme Court’s review. The Supreme Court’s decision, affirming the 5th Circuit, concluded that the ATF’s 2018 rule overstepped its authority under federal law.
Details of the Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued that bump stocks do not make a semi-automatic rifle fire automatically as defined by law since the trigger must function separately for each round fired, contrary to the continuous firing mechanism of machine guns.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, penned a forceful dissent. She argued that the majority’s interpretation dangerously narrows the definition of machine guns and disregards the practical realities of how bump stocks enable rapid, continuous fire. Justice Sotomayor warned that this decision could lead to “deadly consequences,” echoing concerns about potential increases in mass shootings facilitated by such devices.
Implications of the Decision
This ruling significantly impacts the regulatory landscape:
- The decision lifts the federal ban on bump stocks in 35 states that do not have their own corresponding laws, potentially leading to a resurgence in their use.
- At least 15 states along with the District of Columbia maintain their bans, which will likely remain in force.
Public and Political Reaction
The decision has been met with substantial criticism from gun control advocates who warn of the potential increase in mass shootings facilitated by such devices. In response, there are calls for Congress to enact legislation specifically banning bump stocks.
Are Bump Stocks Legal in Texas?
Bump stocks are legal in Texas. Although there was significant national discussion about banning these devices following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Texas has not passed any state-specific legislation banning the possession, sale, or use of bump stocks. Like any state without any state law specifically prohibiting them, bump stocks remain legal in Texas.
States Where Bump Stocks Are Illegal
| State | Legal Status | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| California | Illegal | Penal Code Section 30600 |
| Colorado | Illegal | HB19-1177 |
| Connecticut | Illegal | Section 53-202w |
| Delaware | Illegal | Title 11, Chapter 5 |
| Florida | Illegal | SB 7026 |
| Hawaii | Illegal | HRS 134-8 |
| Maryland | Illegal | Criminal Law Section 4-301 |
| Massachusetts | Illegal | Chapter 140, Section 121 |
| Nevada | Illegal | NRS 202.360 |
| New Jersey | Illegal | PL 2018, c.39 |
| New York | Illegal | Penal Law 265.01 |
| Rhode Island | Illegal | Title 11-47-8.1 |
| Vermont | Illegal | Title 13, Section 4011 |
| Washington | Illegal | RCW 9.41.190 |
| District of Columbia | Illegal | DC Code § 7-2502.02 |
Conclusion
Garland v. Cargill is not just a legal determination about a specific firearm accessory but a landmark case with wide-reaching implications on how firearms are regulated in the United States. It reflects the broader societal and political conflicts surrounding gun control and the scope of regulatory authority, ensuring that this topic will remain at the forefront of legal and political discourse. In the upcoming terms, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to tackle several significant cases related to gun rights, which will likely influence the legal landscape around firearm regulations. One such pivotal case involves the regulation of so-called “ghost guns”—firearms that can be assembled from parts and do not have serial numbers. This case, expected to be argued in October, will address the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate these untraceable weapons. Additionally, the Court’s future docket includes a review of laws surrounding gun storage and public carry restrictions, reflecting the ongoing national debate on how to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns.
