The Supreme Court has announced that it will weigh the Trump-era ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic firearms to fire more rapidly. This decision comes after a tragic mass shooting in 2017, where a gunman utilizing a bump stock killed approximately 60 individuals and injured hundreds more at a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip. The incident remains the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

Previously, the conservative-majority Supreme Court had chosen not to intervene in lower court rulings regarding bump stocks. However, with a growing division among the nation's courts on this issue, the justices have agreed to take up a Biden administration appeal in defense of the ban.

This latest development further raises the profile of gun-related cases before the Supreme Court, as it is already considering arguments next week on the constitutionality of a federal gun possession ban for individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders. Observers are particularly interested in this case, as it may provide insights into how the conservative majority may address Second Amendment rights following their landmark ruling last year that expanded such rights significantly.

The matter at hand specifically revolves around the Trump-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and their regulation of bump stocks under the definition of "machineguns" in federal law. Congress has long prohibited the possession and transfer of "machineguns," and the case hinges on whether firearms equipped with bump stocks meet the criteria of firing "automatically more than one shot... by a single function of the trigger."

The Justice Department, in its court filings, argues that the interpretive rule issued by the ATF did not alter the existing scope of the statutory prohibition on possessing or transferring new machine guns. Rather, it served to inform the public of the ATF's view that bump stocks should be classified as "machineguns" based on Congress's definition.

Support for the bump stock ban has come from a coalition of gun control groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. They have backed the Biden administration's appeal and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the ban.

Michael Cargill, who filed the underlying lawsuit after surrendering his own bump stocks to comply with the rule, also supports the Supreme Court reviewing the case. However, Cargill maintains that bump stocks should not be classified as machineguns, arguing that the Justice Department overlooks the significant human input required to fire multiple shots from a bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle.

Cargill's attorneys have contended that national uniformity is necessary to address the issue of whether bump stocks should be outlawed or permitted. They argue that it is untenable to have a situation where the sale and possession of these devices are prohibited in some circuits while permitted in others.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear this case is poised to have far-reaching implications on the regulation of bump stocks and the interpretation of federal law regarding machineguns. It remains to be seen how the court will ultimately rule and what impact it will have on future gun control measures.