Federal judge strikes down bump stock ban, recognizing Americans’ right to possess the controversial firearm accessory.
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
- Decision follows a favorable Supreme Court ruling against the bump stock ban
- Case highlights ongoing debate over gun rights and firearm accessory regulations
Federal Judge Overturns Controversial Bump Stock Ban
In a significant victory for gun rights advocates, Senior United States District Judge David Alan Ezra has vacated the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) rule banning bump stocks. The ruling, made in the case of Cargill v. Garland in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, recognizes the plaintiff Michael Cargill’s right to possess these devices under federal law.
This decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape surrounding firearm accessories with bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic firearms to fire at increased speeds, dominating the discussion since their use in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
ATF’s bump stock ban rule has been vacated! https://t.co/dKUg4qU00A
— Andy Hogue (@AndyHogue) June 14, 2024
Legal Journey to Overturn the Ban
The path to this ruling has been long and complicated. Cargill had previously secured a favorable ruling against the bump stock ban in 2023, but the Court did not provide any means of relief at that time. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court’s decision against the ban that the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s earlier denial of Cargill’s motion for relief.
District Judge David Alan Ezra then vacated the ATF’s bump stock ban rule and recognized plaintiff Michael Cargill’s “right to possess” the device under federal law.
Ezra’s ruling is clear and unambiguous. He stated that Cargill has the right to possess and transfer non-mechanical bump stocks and clarified that federal prohibitions on machine guns do not limit Cargill’s rights regarding bump stocks.
Implications for Gun Rights and Legislation
This ruling represents a significant pushback against what many conservatives view as government overreach in firearm regulation.
It will likely have far-reaching consequences and could prompt further legal challenges to other firearm accessory regulations and influence future legislative moves. Gun rights advocates are celebrating this as a win for constitutional rights, while gun control proponents may see it as a setback in efforts to regulate potentially dangerous accessories.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Firearm Regulation
For now, the decision stands as a significant affirmation of gun rights. However, advocates also warn that the ruling could spark renewed legislative efforts from Democrats to chip away at Second Amendment rights, particularly if Kamala Harris enters the White House in January.
