.JPG)
Bump stocks orbump fire stocks aregun stocks that can be used to assist inbump firing, the act of using therecoil of asemi-automatic firearm to firecartridges in rapid succession.
Thelegality of bump stocks in the United States came under question[1][2][3] following the2017 Las Vegas shooting, in which 60 people were killed and 867 people injured.[4][5][6]The gunman was found to have fitted bump stocks to his weapons, though no evidence was reported in which any of these specific weapons were actually used in the shooting.[7] Several states passed legislation restricting ownership of bump stocks following this shooting. In December 2018, the United StatesBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)published a rule that bump stocks constituted "machine guns", and thus were illegal under federal law. The Supreme Court vacated this regulation in June 2024 inGarland v. Cargill. Bump stocks remain illegal in 15 states and the District of Columbia based on state bans not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.[8]
Bump fire stocks aregun stocks that are specially designed to make bump firing easier, but do not make thefirearm automatic.[9] Essentially, bump stocks assist rapid fire by "bumping" thetrigger against one's finger (as opposed to one's finger pulling on the trigger), thus allowing the firearm'srecoil, plus constant forward pressure by the non-shooting arm, to actuate the trigger. Bump fire stocks can be placed on a few common weapons such as theAR orAK families. They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun.[1] By 2018, bump fire stocks in the United States were sold for around $100 and up, with prices increasing prior to enactment of federal regulation.[1][10]
Slide Fire Solutions, the inventor, patent holder, and leading manufacturer of bump stocks, suspended sales after bump stocks were used in the2017 Las Vegas shooting, and resumed sales a month later.[11][12] On May 20, 2018, 95 days after theParkland high school shooting, Slide Fire Solutions permanently halted sales and production of its products even though bump stocks were not involved in the shooting.[13] However, after the June 2024 ruling, Slide Fire announced they are producing bump fire stocks again.[14]
Bump stocks are banned in California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according toEverytown for Gun Safety as of June 14, 2024.[15][16]
In 2002, one of the first bump stock-type devices, theAkins Accelerator invented by Bill Akins, was deemed by the USBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to not be a "machine gun". The Akins Accelerator used an internal spring to force the firearm forward to re-make contact with the trigger finger after the recoil of the previous shot pushed the firearm rearward.[17][18] The ATF interpreted a "single function of the trigger" to mean a "single movement of the trigger", and since the trigger moved for each shot, the Akins Accelerator was deemed to not be a machine gun.[18] Later, in 2006, the ATF reversed course and reinterpreted the language to mean "single pull of the trigger", which reclassified the Akins Accelerator as a machine gun. TheEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the new interpretation in February 2009.[19]
More modern bump stocks were invented by Slide Fire Solutions founder Jeremiah Cottle as a replacement stock for people who have limited hand mobility.[20] Such bump stocks have no internal spring and require the shooter to use their support hand to maintain constant forward pressure on the front of the rifle in order to achieve continuous fire.[18] Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF issued ten letter rulings that classified bump stocks as a "firearm part", which are unregulated.[21][22] However, in March 2018, as a result of the use of bump stocks in the2017 Las Vegas shooting, at the request of PresidentTrump throughexecutive order, theU.S. Department of Justice announced a plan to reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns" under existing federal law, effectively[Note 1] banning them nationwide.[23][24] Only two states had banned bump stocks prior to the Las Vegas shooting. The final rule of the DoJ was issued on December 18, 2018.[25][26]
Bump stocks remained illegal for nearly all US civilians until the regulation was struck down on June 14, 2024, by the U.S. Supreme Court decision inGarland v. Cargill.
Immediately following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, 72% of registered voters supported a bump stock ban, including 68% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats, according to aMorning Consult poll.[27] After the Parkland shooting, a 2018NPR/Ipsos poll found that 81% of American adults supported and 62% strongly favored banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points.[28] Another poll, byCBS News, around the same time, found that 56% of American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.[29]
The ATF ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation and allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.[1][2][3] In the2017 Las Vegas shooting, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene.[7] TheNational Rifle Association stated on October 5, 2017, "Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations", and called on regulators to "immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law".[30] The 2017 shooting generated bipartisan interest in regulating bump stocks.[31] On October 4, 2017, SenatorDianne Feinstein introduced a bill to ban bump stocks,[1] but it was not acted upon. Instead, on February 20, 2018, six days after the Parkland shooting, President Trump instructed theATF to issue regulations to treat bump stocks asmachine guns.[32]
PresidentDonald Trump blamed former PresidentBarack Obama for having "legalized bump stocks", which he termed a "BAD IDEA",[33] a claim which was found to be partly erroneous byUSA Today, with an ATF official involved in the decision saying neither Obama nor then-Attorney General Eric Holder advised the agency on its ruling and a constitutional law professor explaining that the administration did not possess the legal authority to ban the sale of the devices.[34] On March 23, 2018, at President Trump's request[33] the Department of Justice announced a plan to ban bump stocks at the federal level. The proposed change would reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns" and effectively[Note 1] ban the devices in the United States under existing federal law.[35] Anotice of proposed rulemaking was issued by the ATF on March 29, 2018, and opened for public comments.[24][36] Over 119,000 comments were submitted in support of the proposed rule, while over 66,000 comments expressed opposition to it.[26] On December 18, 2018, thefinal regulation to ban bump stocks was issued by the Department of Justice and published in theFederal Register on December 26.[21][26][37] The final rule stated that "bump-stock-type devices" are covered by theGun Control Act, as amended under the Hughes Amendment, which with limited exceptions, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to 1986. Since the bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to 1986, they would be prohibited when the rule becomes effective.[26] The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy or surrender them to the ATF, punishable by up to a $250,000fine and/orprison sentences of up to ten years.[26][38]
A Freedom of Information Act Request by YouTuber "CheapShot" revealed the ATF received 582 abandoned bump stocks and 98 retained for evidence, out of an estimated 220,000 - 520,000 in circulation.[39][40]
On June 14, 2024, the 2018 final rule by theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was vacated by theSupreme Court of the United States in the decision forGarland v. Cargill (2024). In that decision, Associate JusticeClarence Thomas, writing for the six member majority, stated the 2018 final rule exceeded the ATF's statutory authority under theNational Firearms Act of 1934 as a bump stock does not satisfy the Act's definition of machine gun.[41]
Prior to the federal ban effective March 26, 2019, some states had taken action on their own to restrict ownership of the accessory. Since 1990, the sale of bump stocks has been illegal in California. They were banned in New York with the passage of theNY SAFE Act in 2013, and more explicitly banned in early 2019.[42] The device's legal status is unclear in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, and Puerto Rico.[43]
In his final day as governor in January 2018,New Jersey GovernorChris Christie signed legislation making the gun accessory illegal in New Jersey.[44] Massachusetts banned bump stocks after the2017 Las Vegas shooting.[12]
In March 2018, following theParkland high school shooting,Florida enactedSB 7026, which, among other things, banned bump stocks.[45][46] The portion of the legislation banning bump stocks took effect in October 2018; possession in Florida is a third-degree felony.[47] Vermont passed a similar law in 2018, which went into effect in October 2018; possession in Vermont is amisdemeanor.[48] Delaware,[49] Hawaii,[50] Maryland,[51] Washington,[52] Washington D.C.,[53] and Nevada[54] have also banned bump stocks.
Some states that do not ban bump stocks may have localities that ban them, such asNorthbrook, Illinois (April 2018);[55]Boulder, Colorado (May 2018);[56] and others.
In May 2019, theOffensive Weapons Act 2019 prohibited bump stocks in the UK.[57]
In November 2019, bump stocks were import banned in Australia to prevent mass shootings like the ones from Las Vegas from occurring in Australia.[58]
Severalgun rights groups have challenged the federal regulation.[59][60]
AnAustin, Texas firearms store owner,Michael Cargill, sued ATF in 2019, in theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, similarly challenging the authority of the agency to classify bump stocks as illegal machine guns. Cargill is also represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.[61][62][63] The district court dismissed the suit in November 2020.[61] On 14 December 2021, a unanimous three-judge panel on theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban.[64] On 23 June 2022, the court reversed the panel decision and took the caseen banc. Oral argument was heard on 12 September 2022.[65] On 6 January 2023, the court's full panel ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns and reversed the district court.[66]
On June 14, 2024, upon appeal before theSupreme Court of the United States, the 2018 final rule was vacated in a 6–3 decision.[67]
In December 2018,Gun Owners of America sued the federal government in theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, challenging the bump stock ban.[68] On 21 March 2019, the group's request for apreliminary injunction was denied by the district court.[69] TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court both denied a stay on the effective date of the regulation pending the appeal.[70]
Followingoral argument in December 2020, the Sixth Circuit panel issued a 2–1 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on 25 March 2021.[71] The majority decision, written by JudgeAlice M. Batchelder and joined by JudgeEric E. Murphy, ruled that (1) an agency's interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled toChevron deference, (2) bump stocks cannot be classified as machineguns, thus the ATF's rule is not the best interpretation of the law, and (3) the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their challenge, therefore the district court should have granted an injunction. The courtremanded the case back to the district court for proceedings in accordance with its opinion (i.e., to issue an injunction).[71][72][73] JudgeHelene White dissented, writing that the Supreme Court had previously appliedChevron deference to agency interpretations of criminal statutes in the cases ofBabbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon andUnited States v. O'Hagan.[71] The appeals court granted an en banc petition on 25 June 2021[74] and heard oral argument in October 2021.[75] On 3 December 2021, the court issued an 8–8 split decision, thus leaving the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in place.[76] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 3 October 2022.[77]
The Firearms Policy Coalition and other gun-rights groups sued in thefederal district court in Washington, D.C., also seeking an injunction.[78] In February 2019, U.S. District JudgeDabney L. Friedrich denied the Firearms Policy Coalition's request for an injunction, determining that the group had not put forward convincing legal arguments that the ban was invalid.[78][79] TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of the regulation, but only as applied to the plaintiffs and their members.[80] A broader injunction was denied by the Supreme Court.[81]
On 1 April 2019, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in aper curiam decision, based largely onChevron deference. The decision allowed the ban to go into effect for the plaintiffs. JudgeKaren L. Henderson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.[80] A second stay application was denied by the Supreme Court on 5 April 2019, withThomas andGorsuch indicating that they would have granted the application.[82][83] The Supreme Court denied a petition for awrit of certiorari (petition for review) on 2 March 2020; Gorsuch issued a statement agreeing that the time was not right for Supreme Court review, but criticizing the D.C. Circuit's position and writing that "Chevron's application in this case may be doubtful."[84]
The case then returned to the district court on the merits, and in February 2021, the court grantedsummary judgment in favor of the government, holding thatChevron deference applied; that ATF had the authority to state that the NFA's definition of "machinegun" includes bump stocks; and that ATF's interpretation of the statutory language was reasonable. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' Taking Clause andex post facto clause claims, as well as their claim that the underlying statutes wereimpermissibly vague.[85] On 9 August 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban by reasoning that it was the best reading of the law without applyingChevron deference.[86][87] A petition for anen banc rehearing was denied on 2 May 2023.[88] The case is pending before the Supreme Court.[89]
In 2019, W. Clark Aposhian, the chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, a gun rights group, sued the ATF in thefederal district court of Utah over the bump stock ban, arguing that the promulgation of the regulation exceeded the ATF's statutory authority. Aposhian is represented by theNew Civil Liberties Alliance.[61][90] The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to block the ban in March 2019.[91][92] In March 2019, theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a temporary stay that applies only to the plaintiff,[93] but ultimately upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction.[94] In April 2019, in a divided opinion, the Tenth Circuit denied the motion for a stay, and a divided panel upheld the district court's ruling. The appeals court granted reviewen banc (i.e., by the full court), but ultimately dismissed the grant ofen banc rehearingas improvidently granted, allowing the panel decision (and thus the bump-stock ban) to stay in place.[94][95] The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 3 October 2022.[96] On 29 September 2023, the district court upheld the rule underChevron deference.[97]
In June 2018, the group Maryland Shall Issue filed a putativeclass action lawsuit in thefederal district court in Maryland, challenged 2018 Maryland Senate Bill 707 which banned "rapid-fire trigger activators";[98] the plaintiffs alleged that the ban was anunconstitutional taking requiringjust compensation, among other challenges. In November 2018, the district court dismissed the case.[99] In June 2020, theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit in a 2–1 vote.[100][101] In May 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[102][103]
Two similar lawsuits were filed in theUnited States Court of Federal Claims challenging the federal bump-stock ban—one filed by bump stock owners (McCutchen), the other by bump-stock suppliers (Modern Sportsman and RW Arms). Both were dismissed.[104][105][106][107] In the latter case, the court held that the ATF Final Rule banning bump stocks "was promulgated pursuant to the police power to protect public safety and therefore not a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment."[107] Both cases were unsuccessfully appealed to theCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. En banc petitions were denied and the Supreme Court denied review.[108]
In another case, filed in theDistrict Court for the Northern District of Texas, the government failed to have the case dismissed, but was given another opportunity to argue so. However, the case is nowstayed pending the outcome of McCutchen and Modern Sportsman.[109]
Another challenge, filed in theDistrict Court for the Western District of Kentucky, was unsuccessful.[110] The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case on 19 January 2023, and ruled on 25 April 2023, that bump stocks are not machineguns.[111]
A class action lawsuit filed in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois seeking immunity for legal purchasers of bump stocks prior to the ATF rule change was denied by the court in June 2020.[112] On 31 October 2022, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the ban.[113]
TheNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on 7 September 2021, that a bump stock does not fall under the definition of a machinegun. The ruling was not appealed by the government.[114]
Florida banned bump stocks in October 2018. A class action lawsuit challenging the ban as anunconstitutional taking requiringjust compensation was unsuccessful in the Leon Countycircuit court in May 2019[115] and in the1st District Court of Appeal in January 2021.[116]
Slide Fire Solutions filed suit against Bump Fire Systems for infringement of its patents on bump stock designs in 2014.[117] The suit alleged that Bump Fire Systems infringed eight US Patents, for example, United States Patent No. 6,101,918 entitled "Method And Apparatus for Accelerating the Cyclic Firing Rate of a Semi-Automatic Firearm"[118] and United States Patent No. 8,127,658 entitled "Method of Shooting a Semi-Automatic Firearm".[119] The suit was settled in 2016, resulting in Bump Fire Systems ceasing manufacture of the product in contention.[120]
Survivors of the2017 Las Vegas shooting sued bump stock patent holder and manufacturer Slide Fire Solutions, claiming the company was negligent and that they deliberately attempted to evade U.S. laws regulating automatic weapons: "this horrific assault would not and could not have occurred, with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self defense."[13] The suit was dismissed in September 2018; the court determined that the bump stocks of the sort used by gunmanStephen Paddock to commit the murders, were "firearm components" rather than "firearm accessories" and were therefore subject to theProtection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law immunizing manufacturers and sellers of firearms from liability for harm "caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products".[121][122]