A simple device that speeds up the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon is at the center of a case that could cast a shadow over a government agency’s ability to regulate firearms.
For Michael Cargill, a passionate gun rights advocate who sells firearms in Austin, the accessory, a bump stock, was a niche item on the shelves of his store, Central Texas Gun Works, until 2017. It appealed primarily to people who were injured or disabled, such as veterans who needed assistance shooting a gun or “people who just wanted to have fun,” he said.
But this year, a high-stakes gambler stationed on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel opened fire on a country music festival, killing 60 people and wounding hundreds. In his arsenal were a dozen AR-15-style rifles equipped with the device.
Government officials quickly called for a ban, triggering alarm among gun store owners such as Mr. Cargill, 54, a gregarious Army veteran who said the raid and assault on his grandmother shaped his views on gun control.
“I was one of the few people who said, wait a minute, wait a minute,” said Mr. Cargill, who challenged the ban and is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal advocacy group primarily challenging it , what it sees unlawful use of administrative powers. “It’s crazy that anyone would go along with this. We have to stop this now.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Trump administration acted lawfully when it issued a ban making the part illegal to buy or possess. This is not a Second Amendment case. Rather, it is one of several challenges aimed at limiting the reach of administrative agencies—in this case, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“During the Trump administration, the bump stock ban emerged as a fairly glaring example of unlawful administrative power,” Philip Hamburger, a co-founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said in an email. “This rule turned half a million people into criminals overnight. This is not a power that the Constitution grants to administrative agencies – so it deserves a lawsuit.”
In a letter to the court, Attorney General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, speaking for the administration, said lifting the ban “risks significant harm to public safety.”
“Bump stocks are machine guns because they allow a shooter to ‘automatically fire more than one shot through a single action of the trigger,'” Ms. Prelogar wrote.
The case hinges on whether shock stocks convert semi-automatic rifles into machine guns.
The device attaches to a rifle’s stock, the part of the weapon that is held at the shoulder, and uses the energy of the weapon’s recoil to jolt the stock back and forth, allowing the weapon to fire faster.
The bureau issued the ban in 2018 by clarifying its interpretation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which makes it a crime to manufacture or possess a machine gun, and said it would also be extended to stockpiles. Under federal law, a machine gun is defined as “any weapon that fires, is designed to fire, or can be easily caused to fire, automatically firing more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single action of the trigger.”
At issue is whether the ATF overstepped its bounds by enacting a ban without congressional action. A ruling against the agency could undermine its authority to regulate firearms and accessories.
The day before the ban took effect, Mr. Cargill strolled into the ATF office in Austin, handed over two shares of stock and announced his lawsuit.
Mr. Cargill said he hoped gun owners would pay attention, even though the case does not involve the Second Amendment.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re pro-gun or anti-gun,” he said. “An agency can’t do that.”
New Civil Liberties Alliance President Mark Chenoweth said the case fits in with the group’s other legal challenges.
“In reaching this far-fetched conclusion, the ATF is completely misinterpreting existing law,” Mr. Chenoweth said in an email, “and it has departed from the interpretation it has maintained for over a decade — including during the entire term of the Obama administration.”
Mr. Chenoweth declined to discuss the organization’s donors, but said the group received support from “a variety of donors.”
“NCLA is completely independent and is not part of any other organization, umbrella organization or donor organization,” Mr. Chenoweth wrote.
Federal tax records show the group received at least $1 million from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation. Mr. Chenoweth previously served as a legal reform consultant at Koch Industries.
The lead attorney in the case is Jonathan F. Mitchell, best known for drafting anti-abortion laws that ultimately led to the Supreme Court striking down the constitutional right to the procedure. Mr. Mitchell, who declined to comment, also recently argued on behalf of former President Donald J. Trump to challenge the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove him from the state’s primary.
The deadly potential of a bump stock that sold for less than $200 when it debuted in 2010 became surprisingly clear in October 2017.
This month, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock targeted thousands of concertgoers, firing more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in about 11 minutes. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. In his hotel suite, investigators found about a dozen rifles modified with shock stocks.
The next day, Mr. Cargill’s store sold out of stock.
“Whenever something happens, like a shooting or something like that, and people think the government is going to ban a certain part, people want to buy it,” Mr. Cargill said.
Unusual coalitions emerged supporting a ban on bump stocks, but there were signs from the start that the politically divisive move could face challenges.
Lawmakers, including several leading Republicans, signaled openness to banning the device. Even the National Rifle Association supported tighter restrictions.
Spurred in part by increasing political pressure, Mr. Trump, a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment, vowed to enact a ban.
In response, the Justice Department promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but ATF officials had privately suggested that a ban would likely require action from Congress, where bipartisan action has often stalled.
The ATF’s decision to ban the device amounted to an about-face and raised questions about the scope of its authority to regulate the accessory.
Mr. Cargill was among those outraged by the ban, saying it would open the door to greater gun control.
“If you give the ATF an inch, it takes a mile,” Mr. Cargill said. “I was shocked that no one fought back. I said something has to be done. You can’t just walk into people’s houses and take something they bought legally.”
Federal courts struggled with the legality of the ban and issued conflicting rulings. The divisions increased the likelihood that the Supreme Court would take a stand.
After a federal judge in Texas sided with the government in Mr. Cargill’s case, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ultimately, the full court agreed with Mr. Cargill by a vote of 13 to 3, citing ideological differences.
“A simple reading of the statutory language, coupled with a close examination of the mechanics of a semiautomatic firearm, shows that a bump stock is exempt from the technical definition of ‘machine gun’ in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote.
She addressed concerns that “bump stocks contribute to gun deaths” and added that “it is not our job to determine our country’s public policy.”
The three dissenting justices, all appointed by Democrats, argued that the majority’s reasoning served to “legalize an instrument of mass murder.”
Source link
2024-02-28 08:00:22
www.nytimes.com
