The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, a gun accessory that enables semi-automatic weapons to fire at a rate similar to machine guns.

In a 6-3 decision, the high court ruled that the Trump administration failed to follow federal law when it enacted the restrictions. The ban was challenged by Michael Cargill, the owner of a Texas gun store, who argued that the ATF overstepped its authority by banning the devices.

The Trump administration implemented the bump stock ban in December 2018, more than a year after a gunman used the device in a deadly attack at a country music festival in Las Vegas. The massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, resulted in over 1,000 rounds fired into the crowd within 11 minutes, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds more. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reconsidered bump stocks after an in-depth examination spurred by the Las Vegas shooting and decided to classify bump stocks as machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

The Biden administration supported the ban, describing it as the right choice for an accessory that allows weapons to fire hundreds of rounds per minute. The administration argued that the ban was necessary to prevent further tragedies like the Las Vegas shooting.

At the time the ban took effect in 2019, there were approximately 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. Owners were required to surrender or destroy them, resulting in an estimated combined financial loss of $100 million, according to court documents filed by the plaintiffs. This created a significant financial burden for gun owners and sparked widespread controversy.

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has previously ruled in favor of gun rights, including a landmark 2022 decision that expanded gun rights nationwide by striking down a New York law restricting concealed carry permits. The bump stocks case, however, centered on whether the ATF had the legal authority to ban the devices without explicit congressional approval.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the ATF lacked the authority to issue the ban under existing federal law. He noted that if Congress intended to ban bump stocks, it needed to pass specific legislation to that effect. Gorsuch also highlighted the importance of adhering to the rule of law and ensuring that regulatory agencies do not exceed their statutory authority.

Conservative justices questioned why Congress had not passed any laws banning bump stocks, while the liberal justices argued that it is "common sense" to restrict accessories capable of producing a "torrent of bullets." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, stated that the ATF's interpretation of the National Firearms Act to include bump stocks was reasonable and necessary to protect public safety.

Bump stocks are gun accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. They utilize the gun’s recoil energy to make the trigger bump against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire at a rate comparable to a traditional machine gun. This mechanism makes it possible for a semi-automatic rifle to fire rapidly, mimicking the firing speed of fully automatic weapons, which are heavily regulated under federal law.

Currently, fifteen states and Washington, D.C., have their own bans on bump stocks. These state-level bans will remain in effect regardless of the Supreme Court's decision. States with their own prohibitions include California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, among others. These states implemented their bans in response to growing concerns about mass shootings and the potential misuse of bump stocks.

The decision has reignited the debate over gun control and the regulation of firearm accessories. Gun rights advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for the Second Amendment and the rule of law, arguing that it prevents federal agencies from overstepping their authority. On the other hand, gun control advocates expressed disappointment, warning that the decision could lead to increased use of bump stocks and potentially more mass shootings.

The ruling underscores the ongoing divide in the United States over gun rights and regulation. It highlights the challenges lawmakers face in addressing gun violence while balancing constitutional rights. As the debate continues, both sides are likely to push for legislative solutions to address their concerns, with gun control advocates seeking stricter regulations and gun rights supporters advocating for fewer restrictions.

This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing national conversation about gun control and the limits of regulatory authority. It sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future and could influence the legislative approach to firearm regulation in the years to come.