The United States Supreme Court has recently agreed to review a lawsuit challenging a nationwide ban on “bump stocks.” This controversial regulation is part of former President Trump’s effort to expand gun regulation and close loopholes that allow access to high-powered weapons such as automatic ones.
What are Bump Stocks?
A bump stock is a device that fits at the back of semi-automatic rifles and increases the rate of fire of the gun. Essentially, it mimics the firing speed of a fully automatic weapon, though it isn’t classified as one. It was originally designed for recreational purposes and for competitive shooting.
Though it did not make it illegal to possess a bump stock, the Department of Justice—on instructions from Trump—issued a regulation that bans their sale under the National Firearms Act. This Act aims to regulate the production, possession, and sale of weapons deemed too dangerous for public access.
The Challenge
The challenge to the ban brought forward by the gun lobby group, Firearms Policy Coalition, and other gun rights activists, argues that the regulation violates the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms.
The firearms lobby group is also contesting the validity of the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the National Firearms Act. They believe that the Act does not grant the Executive branch the power to ban such products.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court will now have to determine whether the ban is constitutional and whether the Department of Justice had the authority to issue it. This court case is likely to prove pivotal in deciding what firearms come under the purview of the National Firearms Act, something that many state governments are keenly watching.
The Supreme Court’s decision—expected to be handed down in 2021—could have wide implications for lawmakers, gun rights activists, and the country’s gun regulation efforts. It is a case that brings together the age-old debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment. Will the court rule in favor of the American tradition of gun ownership, or will it give power to the Department of Justice to more easily restrict access to certain weapons? Time will tell.
