In a significant ruling, the US Supreme Court has invalidated the Trump administration's ban on bump stocks. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) wrongly classified firearms equipped with bump stocks as machine guns.

The court determined that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the definition of a "machinegun" under federal law because it does not fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger." This ruling focuses on a bump stock as an accessory that allows the shooter to achieve a high rate of fire by rapidly reengaging the trigger.

The ATF ban on bump stocks was introduced in response to the tragic mass shooting at a Las Vegas music festival in 2017, where the gunman utilized a firearm equipped with this device. The shooting resulted in the death of 58 individuals and left hundreds wounded.

More than 700,000 bump stocks were sold since 2009 when the ATF under the Obama administration approved their manufacture and sale. These non-mechanical accessories simulate the firing capabilities of automatic weapons, allowing them to discharge approximately 400-800 rounds per minute. In comparison, fully automatic weapons like the M16 rifle typically shoot 700-950 rounds per minute.

The dissenting opinion came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who argued that the bump stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle does indeed fire automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, thereby qualifying it as a machinegun. Sotomayor expressed concern over the decision's potential to hinder the government's efforts to prevent mass shootings.

Those in favor of the court's ruling, including bump stock inventor Jeremiah Cottle, expressed relief and vindication. Cottle emphasized that the issue lies in addressing violence rather than blaming inanimate objects.

Plaintiff Michael Cargill, a gun store owner from Texas, celebrated the decision as a matter of personal liberties and protection against government overreach. Cargill argued that it is unjust for the government to retroactively render legal purchases illegal.

However, gun control advocates criticized the court's decision, labeling it as dangerous and wrong. Eric Tirschwell, the executive director of Everytown Law, called for the ATF to continue enforcing gun laws diligently.

President Joe Biden responded to the ruling by urging Congress to ban bump stocks and assault weapons. However, given the divided partisan landscape and the influence of the gun lobby, immediate legislative action is unlikely, although a ban on bump stocks previously had bipartisan support in 2017.

While former President Donald Trump's campaign respected the court's decision, they did not address the fact that the ATF imposed the ban during his administration.

The Supreme Court's ruling on bump stocks sets a precedent, clarifying that these devices are not classified as machine guns under federal law. The decision impacts the ongoing debate surrounding gun control measures and highlights the challenges of finding a balance between individual rights and public safety.