The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that a bump stock, an accessory that allows a semi-automatic rifle to fire rapidly by harnessing the recoil energy, does not convert the rifle into a “machinegun” under the statutory definition in 26 U.S.C. §5845(b).
The key points are:
- The statutory definition of a “machinegun” requires it to shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
- A semi-automatic rifle requires the shooter to reengage the trigger for every shot, even when using a bump stock. Therefore, it does not fire “automatically” by a “single function of the trigger” as defined.
- While a bump stock allows a high rate of fire similar to a machinegun, the Court ruled it cannot deviate from the clear statutory definition provided by Congress.
- The dissent argued the Court’s interpretation undermines Congress’s intent to restrict civilian access to firearms with machinegun-like capabilities. However, the majority stated that changing the law’s meaning is up to Congress, not the Court.
In summary, the Court interpreted the statutory definition literally, ruling that semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks do not meet the legal criteria to be classified as prohibited “machineguns,” despite their rapid firing capability.
You can read the opinion here:
