Supreme Court strikes down bump stock ban — then Justice Alito delivers the crucial detail: 'There is a simple remedy'

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal ban on bump stocks.

In December 2018, the Trump administration outlawed bump stocks via an ATF rule that declared the device to be a "machine gun," thus making bump stocks illegal under federal law. The case, Garland v. Cargill, made its way to the Supreme Court after a U.S. district court initially ruled in the government's favor, a decision with which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

'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.'

The central issue in the case is whether a bump stock device fits the definition of "machine gun."

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority because bump stock devices do not meet the statutory definition of a "machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C §5845(b)."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.

Using the statutory definition of a machine gun — any firearm capable of firing "automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger" — Thomas explained why a bump stock doesn't satisfy the definition.

He wrote:

A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” With or without a bump stock, a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” All that a bump stock does is accelerate the rate of fire by causing these distinct “function[s]” of the trigger to occur in rapid succession.

This is the critical distinction between fully automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms.

Fully automatic firearms discharge all of their available ammunition with one pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms, on the other hand, fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled. A bump stock increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic firearm by using the recoil of the firearm essentially to "bump" the trigger to the finger rapidly. But the core mechanics of the firearm — a single bullet discharged per trigger pull — are not modified.

Importantly, Thomas wrote that even if a semi-automatic firearm equipped with a bump stock fired with a single function of the trigger, it doesn't do so "automatically."

"[A] semiautomatic rifle cannot fire more than one shot 'automatically ... by a single function of the trigger' because the shooter must do more than simply engage the trigger one time. The same is true of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock," Thomas wrote.

Moreover, Thomas noted the ATF changed its position on bump stocks after the 2017 Las Vegas mass killing despite having previously argued "on more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations" that bump stocks did not meet the statutory definition of "machine gun."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion. The court's other two left-leaning justices — Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined her.

Despite the majority's technical and mechanical explanation of why a bump stock does not satisfy the statutory definition of "machine gun," Sotomayor opened her dissenting opinion by making a significant accusation.

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands," she claimed.

"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 added.

However, unlike the majority, Sotomayor eschewed the technical mechanics of firearms — even writing at one point, "Regardless of what is happening in the internal mechanics of a firearm" — and tried to redefine the statute. She argued that a "single function of the trigger" actually means "a single action by the shooter to initiate a firing sequence."

Moreover, Sotomayor fearmongered that the ruling "will have deadly consequences" while bemoaning that it "hamstrings" the government.

But the one concurring opinion in the case, written by Justice Samuel Alito, proves the ruling does no such thing.

According to Alito, there is a "simple remedy" to outlaw bump stocks.

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law — and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation," Alito wrote.

"Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act," he added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!