The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Trump administration acted lawfully in banning bump stocks, devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire rapidly. The Biden administration has urged the Supreme Court to uphold the ban, supporting the Trump administration's move to address gun violence after the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. During that incident, a gunman used a bump stock to fire hundreds of rounds, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more. Initially, the Justice Department stated that it did not have the authority to ban bump stocks without congressional action, but later reversed course and determined that it could regulate the devices on its own.

The case before the Supreme Court focuses on executive power rather than the Second Amendment. Challengers argue that the ban, which went into effect in 2019, was not authorized by federal laws that prohibit machine guns. The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a machine gun as a weapon capable of firing automatically without manual reloading, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 expanded the definition to include parts that can convert a weapon into a machine gun. The government argues that bump stocks can be regulated under these laws, as they allow rifles to fire multiple shots rapidly, similar to a machine gun. Federal appeals courts have issued conflicting rulings on the legality of the ban, leading to uncertainty and controversy surrounding the possession and sale of bump stocks.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case comes as part of a larger set of cases it will consider, including one involving the National Rifle Association and another related to arbitration agreements. The legal battle over bump stocks centers on a 2018 rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that expanded the definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks. The rule made possession of bump stocks a felony offense. The ban was introduced in response to the Las Vegas shooting, where the use of bump stocks allowed the shooter to unleash rapid bursts of gunfire on a crowd, resulting in numerous casualties.

Michael Cargill, the plaintiff in the current case, purchased two bump stocks before the ban went into effect and subsequently turned them in. He filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, arguing that bump stocks should not be classified as machine guns under federal law. The district court and a three-judge appeals court panel both ruled against Cargill, finding that bump stocks do qualify as machine guns. However, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the panel's decision, stating that the National Firearms Act is ambiguous and that non-mechanical bump stocks should not be classified as machine guns.

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the 5th Circuit's decision conflicts with other appellate court rulings and poses a threat to public safety. The administration contends that bump stocks, like machine guns, are highly dangerous and should be prohibited. They also warn that allowing the 5th Circuit's decision to stand could have far-reaching consequences beyond that jurisdiction. Cargill's attorneys argue that the ban criminalizes those who previously possessed bump stocks, despite previous assurances from the ATF that possession was legal. They highlight the impact of the ban, which requires the surrender or destruction of over 520,000 bump stocks owned by Americans.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have significant implications for gun control measures and the scope of executive power. It will determine whether the ban on bump stocks was authorized under existing federal laws and whether the government has the authority to regulate firearm accessories without congressional action. The court's ruling will provide clarity on the legality of bump stocks and could have broader implications for other gun control regulations.