The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) followed the Las Vegas mass shooting in 2017 with the change in policy concerning bump stocks. These simple firearm accessories were previously approved for use, and many were sold.
But that changed when a gunman used weapons accessorized with bump stocks to fire down onto a country music festival on the Las Vegas Strip. Approximately 60 people were killed, and hundreds were injured in the deadliest mass shooting in American history.
Under intense political pressure, the ATF changed course and unilaterally ruled them illegal. The agency declared that their use converted the weapons they were attached to into machine guns.
This created a problematic issue for many gun owners. Federal authorities estimate over half a million of the devices have been sold.
Machine guns have long been banned by Congress, but the ATF in recent years assumed what many critics believe is legislative power it does not have in redefining what a machine gun is. This is despite the Gun Control Act of 1934 establishing a clear definition for illegal weapons.
The ATF further used the 1968 Gun Control Act to expand the classification of weapons equipped with bump stocks.
The case landed at the feet of the Supreme Court through a circuit court split. The ATF prohibition was upheld by the Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals.
However, the Fifth and Sixth Districts found the ban unconstitutional.
As currently constructed, the high court has consistently allowed lower court decisions to stand. But the wide divide between rulings in the nation’s courts pushed the issue front and center before the justices.
On Friday, a brief unsigned order signaled the decision to hear arguments during the current term. A ruling is expected by the end of June.
Many believe the bump stock issue has ramifications on the larger principle of the “Chevron deference.” This sprang from a 1984 federal case and established that the judiciary will generally defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.
However, the agency’s decision must be “reasonable” and it cannot run counter to Congress if lawmakers have spoken directly on the issue.
In the case of the ATF, many Second Amendment advocates believe the agency regularly assumes congressional authority for itself. Definitions established by the legislature including those for machine guns are changed to suit the current political climate.
This directly counteracts the centuries-old principle of separation of powers as the Executive Branch takes over the responsibility of the Legislative Branch.
The nine justices will hear arguments this week in another case with Second Amendment ramifications. They will decide the constitutionality of a federal gun possession ban for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.
The court already issued the most important gun rights ruling in decades last year in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the bench established a new standard protecting the rights of citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.
In the process, the 6-3 majority also significantly raised the bar for gun control laws to be constitutional.
Court watchers will closely observe the justices as they hear arguments on bump stocks and issues their ruling. With the wave of legislation emanating from anti-gun political leaders, there are more issues affecting gun rights which could be decided by the bench in the near future.
