I don’t want to “bury the lead,” so… The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Trump-era bump-stock ban is a violation of federal law. However, while that is a legal victory for Second Amendment advocates, it does not automatically make bump stocks legal. Let’s back up and look at what led up to the latest ruling on bump stocks to better understand it.
Bump stocks were controversial from the beginning. However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (BATFE or ATF) Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) reviewed the bump-stock design and approved it. The FATD found that the addition of a bump stock to a firearm did not meet the definition of a machine gun. By definition, a machine gun is capable of firing multiple rounds from a single activation of the trigger.
On the other hand, a bump stock is a unit that replaces the stock and pistol grip of a rifle. The device is operated by the recoil of a shot being fired and “slides.” The sliding of the bump stock causes the trigger to reset. After reset, continuing through the sliding motion, the pressure from the trigger finger “pulls” the trigger and fires another shot. The cycle then repeats until the pressure is released or the gun runs out of ammunition.
Therefore, with a bump stock, only one round is fired with each activation of trigger. That was the conclusion of the FATD and the reason the ATF’s final ruling held that the addition of the bump stock did not constitute a modification that would convert a firearm to a machine gun.
With bumps stocks being ruled legal and approved for sale, thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps 1 million+ were sold — I couldn’t say, but the number was significant. Gun owners and ammunition manufacturers celebrated. Many primers were sacrificed as magazines were drained at gun ranges.
Then, in 2019 there was a high-profile shooting at a concert outside a casino in Las Vegas. It was reported that multiple firearms were recovered and at least some were equipped with a bump stock. President Trump responded to the political pressure and emotion after such an event.
Sadly, President Trump failed to support the rights of law-abiding gun owners due to the actions of a single murderer. Instead, he asked the ATF to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. The ATF complied.
The ATF used something called Chevron deference (essentially declaring the original ruling to have been ambiguous) to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns. With the rules change, consumers were not compensated for the units they legally purchased. Instead, they were ordered to surrender the units or destroy them. I’m not sure how many were manufactured and sold, but reportedly, very few were surrendered to law enforcement. I guess everyone else decided to personally destroy the units.
The government was, however, serious. The fine for selling or possessing a bump stock was up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000 — for each violation. So, do not get stupid and start flashing a bump stock around the range or on social media — should you know where to get your hands on one.
Is a Bump Stock an Advantage?
Is a bump stock really that much of advantage? Perhaps not — if you are Jerry.
Bump Stocks: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Second Amendment advocates have challenged the ban in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest challenge to be heard. Likely, it will be decided by the Supreme Court, but it could be decided by Congress as well. I’ll get to that later in the story. For now, the case has been kicked back to the hands of a lower court, which is why bump stocks are not legal after the ruling.
To be clear, the latest ruling from the Fifth Circuit is not based on the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Instead, it is based on the argument that by the ATF’s own definition, bump stocks did not fall under the definition of a machine gun.
According to court records:
Bump stocks harness the recoil energy of a semi-automatic firearm so that a trigger “resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter,” according to the ATF. A shooter must maintain constant forward pressure on the weapon with the non-shooting hand, and constant pressure on the trigger with the trigger finger.
The ATF, under the Biden Administration, disagrees and claims bump stocks are properly classified as machine guns.
According to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for majority opinion:
“A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machine gun’ as set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”
~Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod
With the Court finding that the definition of a machine gun, which is set out in two different federal statutes, “…does not apply to bump stocks,” it seems to be as simple as 1+2=3.
- The trigger functions multiple times when a bump stock is used.
- ATF language in the law defines a machine gun as a firearm that fires multiple times with a “single function of the trigger.”
- Therefore, bump stock-equipped firearms do not qualify as machine guns under federal law.
Congress As the Decider
With the majority of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing the law is ambiguous (not meeting the definition of a machine gun), Congress may be the final decider via a court doctrine known as “lenity.”
The motivating purpose of lenity is to provide adequate notice to defendants (due process) and reinforce the notion that only the legislature has the power to define what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not (separation of powers). Lenity seems to be easy to define but difficult to apply. The main point of lenity is that it is a rule of statutory construction that requires a court to resolve statutory ambiguity in favor of a criminal defendant (bump stock owners) or to strictly construe the statute against the state (ATF).
With the word salad “clarifying” lenity, I do not have faith in Congress to take this on and figure it out. I’ll wait and see whether the Supreme Court hears the case. How about you? Share your take on how the case will be decided in the comment section.