The Supreme Court’s big Second Amendment case this term was United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. __ (2024), which I wrote about here. But readers interested in firearms law should know that the Court also decided Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), a case addressing the legal status of bump stocks. The case isn’t a criminal case, and it mostly isn’t a Second Amendment case, but it is an interesting case with important implications for administrative law and perhaps for the future of gun regulations. Bump stocks. A bump stock is a device that can be affixed to the shoulder stock of a semi-automatic rifle. After a shot is fired, the bump stock uses the gun’s recoil to “bump” or bounce the gun back against the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, leading to another shot being fired – and another and another, so long as the shooter holds his or her finger in place and maintains forward pressure on the rifle with his or her non-trigger hand. The New York Times explains the technology, with an illustrative video, here. Bump stocks became widely known in 2017 when Stephen Paddock used them while killing dozens of people and wounding hundreds more at the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas. Pre-2018 legal status. Bump stocks were not illegal under federal law at the time of the Las Vegas shooting. Federal law defines a “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than [...]
Faculty Coordinators
