D.C. Circuit Upholds the Bump Stock Ban, Saying It Is Consistent With the 'Best Interpretation' of the Law
It is hard to see how, given the contortions required to deliver the unilateral prohibition that Donald Trump demanded.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday upheld the federal bump stock ban that took effect in 2019, approving the legal contortions required to justify it. In blessing the Trump administration's redefinition of machine guns to include bump stocks and firearms equipped with them, the appeals court did not merely defer to regulators' interpretation of an ambiguous statute. It concluded that the new reading of the law—which contradicts the position that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) consistently took before then-President Donald Trump demanded that the agency ban bump stocks by administrative fiat—is "the best interpretation of the statute."
That is hard to believe. The ATF's justification for the ban is so implausible that it seems clear the agency rewrote the law to accommodate the president's policy preferences, criminalizing previously legal conduct without bothering to seek new legislation from Congress.
Bump stocks, which became suddenly notorious after they were used in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, facilitate a rapid-firing technique in which recoil energy pushes the weapon backward, resetting the trigger, while the shooter maintains forward pressure on the gun, causing the trigger to bump against his stationary finger. Crucially, the gun still fires just one round each time the trigger is activated, and it continues to fire only as long as the shooter deliberately and repeatedly engages the trigger by pushing the weapon forward.
Those points are crucial because federal law defines a machine gun as a weapon that "automatically" fires more than one round "by a single function of the trigger." The definition also includes "any part" or "combination of parts" that is "designed and intended" to convert a firearm into a machine gun.
A rifle equipped with a bump stock, which allows the front part of the weapon to slide back after each shot, does not fire more than one round for each function of the trigger, which has to be reset and reactivated before the gun will fire again. Nor does a bump-fired rifle shoot "automatically," since the technique requires the shooter's active, ongoing intervention.
As the ATF explained the year before it imposed the ban, bump firing "requires the shooter to manually pull and push the firearm in order for it to continue firing." It added: "Generally, the shooter must use both hands—one to push forward and the other to pull rearward—to fire in rapid succession. While the shooter receives an assist from the natural recoil of the weapon to accelerate subsequent discharge, the rapid fire sequence in bump firing is contingent on shooter input in pushing the weapon forward, rather than mechanical input, and is thus not an automatic function of the weapon."
The ATF took that position for years, reaffirming it in a series of advisory letters. But in 2018, after Trump said he planned to unilaterally ban bump stocks, the agency suddenly decided it had misread the law. It accomplished the result that the president wanted by defining "a single function of the trigger" as a single pull of the trigger, thereby excluding the subsequent bumping, and by defining "automatically" in a way that ignored "shooter input."
While critics of the ban view those definitions as puzzling at best, the D.C. Circuit concluded that they are consistent with the plain meaning of the statute. How so?
Judge Robert Wilkins, who wrote the opinion for a unanimous three-judge panel, cites a 1994 case in which "the Supreme Court referred to an 'automatic' or 'fully automatic' weapon under the National Firearms Act as one 'that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger,' in contrast to one 'that fires only one shot with each pull of the trigger.'" Wilkins is quoting a footnote that begins this way:
As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted.
That second sentence makes it clear that the Court was using pull as shorthand for activating the trigger. That can be accomplished by pulling or bumping, and either way the trigger is "depressed." Unlike the gun at issue in that case, a bump-fired rifle does not "automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted." Its trigger must be "released" before it can fire again.
Wilkins also quotes 1934 congressional testimony concerning the National Firearms Act by Karl T. Frederick, president of the National Rifle Association, who said "the
distinguishing feature of a machine gun is that by a single pull of the trigger the gun continues to fire as long as there is any ammunition in the belt or in the magazine." Again, it is natural to say pull in this context, since that is the way a trigger typically is activated. Frederick's use of that term hardly means that "a single function of the trigger," as used in the current version of the law, excludes bumping.
If the ATF were right that only a literal pull of the trigger counts as a "function," that would mean there is no "function of the trigger" when someone activates it in an unusual way (with a stick, say). When the trigger is pressed, whether by pulling it with a moving finger or by pushing it against a stationary finger, that surely counts as "a function of the trigger."
In a 2021 dissent, 10th Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich explained why the ATF's distinction between pulling and bumping makes no sense:
The statute's plain meaning unambiguously excludes bump stocks. A
semiautomatic rifle, equipped with a bump stock, does not fire multiple shots by a single function of the trigger. "The trigger on that type of rifle must necessarily
'pull' backwards and release the rifle's hammer…every time that the rifle
discharges….The rifle cannot fire a second round until both the trigger and
hammer reset." Every shot requires the trigger to go through this full process again. The fact that a bump stock accelerates this process does not change the underlying fact that it requires multiple functions of the trigger to mimic a machine gun.
The ATF's understanding of "automatically" is likewise counterintuitive. After reversing itself in 2018, the agency now claims "automatically" means "the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firings of multiple rounds." As the ATF sees it, the shooter is part of that mechanism, which allows the agency to ignore the actions he must take to fire the gun repeatedly.
Wilkins says automatically "speaks of a mechanized process that requires less human exertion than an activity 'usually done by hand.'" But bump firing is "done by hand," as the ATF explained in 2017: "Generally, the shooter must use both hands—one to push forward and the other to pull rearward—to fire in rapid succession."
Wilkins is unimpressed by the argument that the need for those human actions means the gun is not firing "automatically." After all, he says, even "a prototypical machine gun" will not continue to fire unless the shooter keeps his finger on the trigger. But the legal definition of a machine gun hinges on what happens when the trigger is pressed, not what happens when the trigger is repeatedly pressed, released, and pressed again. When additional actions are required to fire additional rounds, the process is not automatic.
"If a shooter pulls the trigger of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock without doing anything else, the rifle will fire just one shot," Tymkovich noted. "To make the firearm 'shoot automatically more than one shot,' the shooter must also be pulling forward on the barrel of the gun. Because a bump stock requires this extra physical input, it does not fall within the statutory requirement that the weapon shoot 'automatically…by a single function of the trigger.'"
Wilkins is also unfazed by the fact that bump firing does not require any particular accessory. As the ATF concedes, bump firing is a "technique that any shooter can perform with training or with everyday items" such as "rubber bands, belt loops, string, or even people's fingers." The agency nevertheless says bump-fired rifles are not machine guns unless they are equipped with a "bump-stock-type device." Wilkins thinks that distinction makes sense because bump firing is harder without such an accessory:
Plaintiffs' fear that all semiautomatic weapons will be subject to regulation because they can be modified with everyday items, like belt loops, to fire automatically is unfounded. Unlike a bump stock, a rubber band or belt loop is not automatic because it is not self-regulating. Rather than harnessing the firearm's recoil energy from a rubber band or belt loop in a linear path to engage in a continuous firing sequence, the shooter must harness and direct the recoil energy himself….Harnessing the recoil energy without an automatic device requires a great deal of skill and renders it exponentially more difficult to bump fire.
Wilkins sees eye to eye with the three-judge 5th Circuit panel that upheld the bump stock ban last December. Like the D.C. Circuit panel, it said "bump stocks qualify as machine guns under the best interpretation of the statute." But the 5th Circuit vacated that panel decision in June, and it is now reconsidering the case. If the full court goes a different way, the circuit split could prompt the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey, they’re blaming Trump for something he actually did!
#winning?
It’s oddly refreshing.
Like zima.
Zima? The 80’s called. They said you’re wearing too much Drakkar Noir.
Your just jealous of my members only jacket.
My leather tie is cooler than your members only jacket.
Damn you!
I invented the piano key tie.
I am a student and I do work part time on this website to meet my needs. One who is jobless or want to earn more money for himself, (res-07) should must try this because this is really very easy and less time consuming and also advantageous without investing any amount.
.
SEE MORE:>>>> https://googlejobs0945.netlify.app/
Brute, buddy. The 80’s was the decade of Brute.
Yeah, Zima and Drakkar Noir sounds 90s to me. Now, someone wearing Brute sounds like the kind of guy who enjoys a Miller Lite because it’s less filling.
Don’t judge me!
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (vst-32) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com
Tastes great!
Brut? Your old man wore that. For God’s sake, Joe Namath was its spokesman!
My old man wore Old Spice.
My old man wore pants. I hope you’ve gotten therapy.
I preferred English Leather back then. ‘Cause I’m all sophisticated and shit.
Zima was a 90s product, man.
Where is Sullum and what have you done with him!
This is kind of ideal material for Sullum. Trump was wrong and guns/2A.
Of course, this ignores the fact that a machine gun is covered by the second amendment, as it makes a dandy militia weapon.
The 2nd amendment isn’t about joining a militia, but you probably know that already.
The word militia in the text told you that?
This is key. The machine gun taxban is unconstitutional. But if we are going to pretend it’s ok to ban machine guns, then it’s kinda silly to think the ATF can’t include bump stocks.
We may think regulating machine guns is unjust and unconstitutional, but they are being regulated under federal law right now. The law defining a machine gun is very clear about what a machine gun is. It is so clearly defined, using modern language no less, that there is no room for debate. A bump stock is definitely not a machine gun per any legislation we currently have.
This is like the state of CA declaring bees to be fish for environmental protection reasons because it’s easier to change a definition than change an actual law.
An automatic weapon will cease firing when you stop pulling back on the trigger.
A bump stock will cease to fire the weapon when you stop pushing forward on the barrel shroud.
In both cases the firing pin engages with one round after another until you release pressure on the firing mechanism.
Yes, a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is a fully automatic weapon. This is a case of “being too clever by half”.
“It is not an automatic weapon, it just fires like one.” is a BS argument.
Yes, a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is a fully automatic weapon.
“When I use a word,” Call me Don said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
Except the law says it’s a machine gun if it fires more than one round by a single function of the trigger, not a single function of the barrel shroud.
Shorter D.C. Appeals Court opinion: FYTW
Welp. So much for no person being illegal. I was born with a “machine gun” on the end of each arm. Simply amazing.
I was born with one between my legs.
POW!
one is for fighting, one is for fun
Agency: “Something never meant this before, but it means this now.”
Courts: “We hear agencies give that excuse all the time. Interpretation consistent!”
“Judge Robert Wilkins” is clearly a liberal bitch and about to get a smackdown from the SCOTUS
Those points are crucial because federal law defines a machine gun as a weapon that “automatically” fires more than one round “by a single function of the trigger.” The definition also includes “any part” or “combination of parts” that is “designed and intended” to convert a firearm into a machine gun.
This used to matter, but they’ve changed the definition of “definition” now. Think of “that depends on what the meaning of “is” is” except said dead seriously. The courts are just recognizing the new truth, that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. “Most secure election ever”, “Successful withdrawal”, “Transitory”, “Recession”, “Zero inflation” – just say whatever you want, nobody’s going to argue with you. Except insurrectionists and domestic terrorists.
Not to mention, “woman”.
The real damage came from redefining “human” to include the semi-retarded simians among us, including Judge Wilkins.
The bump stock probably decreased the Las Vegas shooter’s effectiveness, anyway. People tend to overestimate how “densely packed” a large crowd is, and spraying bullets without aiming is still likely to send a ton of bullets harmlessly into the ground or into other obstructions. And if you’re spraying from 450-600 yards away, your bullets aren’t guaranteed to go into the crowd, that’s why you need to control the weapon.
More redefining I’d commonly understood words, this is ludicrous!
Of
Not
I’d
Ducking autocorrect.
Edit and upvote options would be nice.
The Mueller Report completely exonerated Dear Leader in any activity related to Jan. 6th. Everyone knows that just because Dear Leader probably didn’t pee on Russian prostitutes in Moscow (only a 40% chance of being true) any and all subsequent charges are completely false.
Off topic AND stupid. Awesome!
Dear everyone in the Mises/GOP libertarian alliance: I need examples of liberals heads exploding so I can provide them to my fellow gay Black conservatives on Twitter. Let’s Go Brandon
#Banana_Republic
#Its_Time_For_Civil_War_Part_Deux
So a hint about who’s behind the terrible parody sock. Someone butthurt about the Mises caucus making them irrelevant in the LP.
Would Dee really try to pull this stupid shit off?
thank you Most Libertarian President Ever!
See, ‘most’ libertarian doesn’t mean ‘fully’ libertarian.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Donald Trump may well have been the most libertarian president of my lifetime, but that’s just a testament to how low the bar is, not to him being any sort of libertarian.
If this reaches the Supreme Court, how many will view this case based on the Second Amendment, how many based on their feelings toward Trump? For the Left and Trump supporters, this is the definitive question.
I was, and to some extent still am, a Trump supporter, and I thought the bump stock ban was a terrible idea. I suspect it was a throw-away they fully expected the courts to strike down, and got the shock of their lives when the courts instead upheld it, but that’s just a suspicion.
I mostly blame the NRA, as I never thought Trump was, on his own, reliable on the 2nd amendment. But he WAS reliable about not going out of his way to piss off his supporters. It was the NRA that decided it was time to throw a new group of gun owners under the bus, (The way they did back in ’84 to machine gun owners to get the FOPA.) and told him the ban was just fine with them.
Without that betrayal by the NRA, Trump would have left the bump stocks alone.
The NRA are just a bunch of Sockpuppets whose sole purpose is to convince the sheep that the 2nd Amendment says “muskets” instead of “arms.”
If Conservatives are allowed to bear WMD arms like AR-15s, I should be able the bear chemical & biological WMD arms.
It is the 21st century after all. One needs to keep up with the times, instead of obsessing over 19th century gatling gun technology in a 20th century assault rifle package.
That said, I doubt the Court would treat this as a 2nd amendment case, because the majority on the Court isn’t going to go out of their way to defend machine guns, or anything that even vaguely looks like one.
They’ll treat it as a plain vanilla statutory interpretation case, and if anything that it’s about a gun will weigh in the BATF’s favor with at least 5 of the Justices, because it’s about a particularly icky sort of gun, and that matters to some members of the Bruen majority.
Let’s see. Wilkins is a jogger appointed by Obama, Srinivan is an Indian appointed by Obama, and Edwards is a judge appointed by Carter. Anyone surprised here?
Edwards is a jogger too. What a surprise!
If Conservatives are allowed to bear WMD arms like AR-15s, I should be able the bear chemical & biological WMD arms.
It is the 21st century after all. One needs to keep up with the times, instead of obsessing over 19th century gatling gun technology in a 20th century assault rifle package.