A federal judge has struck down a ban on bump stocks, recognizing the right to possess these controversial firearm accessories.
At a Glance
- Senior U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra vacated the ATF’s bump stock ban rule
- Plaintiff Michael Cargill’s “right to possess” bump stocks under federal law was recognized
- The ruling allows for possession and transfer of non-mechanical bump stocks
- This decision follows a favorable Supreme Court ruling against the bump stock ban
- The case, Gargill v. Garland, was heard in the U.S. District for the Western District of Texas
Federal Judge Overturns Bump Stock Ban
In a landmark decision, Senior United States District Judge David Alan Ezra has overturned the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) ban on bump stocks. The ruling, which recognizes the right to possess these devices under federal law, marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates and could have far-reaching implications for firearm regulations across the nation.
Bump stocks, or bump fire stocks, are kinds of gun stocks that are used for the purpose of “bump firing” in semi-automatic firearms.
The case, Gargill v. Garland, was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiff Michael Cargill had previously secured a favorable ruling against the bump stock ban in 2023, but without relief. This latest decision not only vacates the ATF rule but also explicitly acknowledges Cargill’s right to possess and transfer non-mechanical bump stocks under federal law.
ATF’s bump stock ban rule has been vacated! https://t.co/dKUg4qU00A
— Andy Hogue (@AndyHogue) June 14, 2024
Supreme Court Influence and Legal Trajectory
The path to this ruling was paved by a Supreme Court decision that led the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the district court’s initial denial of Cargill’s motion for relief. The appeals court instructed the lower court “to consider alterations to the judgment or other relief,” setting the stage for Judge Ezra’s decisive ruling.
This legal development signals a potential shift in how firearm accessories are classified and regulated. The court’s recognition of a right to possess bump stocks challenges existing interpretations of gun laws and may influence future legislation on firearm capabilities and accessories.
The judge’s ruling clarifies that federal prohibitions on machine guns do not limit Cargill’s rights regarding bump stocks. This distinction is crucial, as it separates bump stocks from the more heavily regulated category of machine guns, potentially opening the door for broader ownership and use of these devices.
The decision is likely to reignite debates on gun rights and public safety. Supporters of the ruling argue that it upholds Second Amendment rights and prevents overreach by federal agencies. Critics, however, may express concerns about the potential for increased gun violence with easier access to devices that can enhance a firearm’s rate of fire.
