News

Aug 13, 2023

Another appeals court rules against US ban on gun 'bump stocks'

(Reuters) - A second federal appeals court has struck down a nationwide ban on

(Reuters) - A second federal appeals court has struck down a nationwide ban on so-called "bump stocks," devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to rapidly fire multiple rounds like machine guns.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Tuesday sided with a Kentucky man who had sued to challenge the rule in 2019. The court said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) went beyond its legal authority when it banned the devices by classifying them as "machine gun" parts in 2017.

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit already struck down the ban in a separate case in January. President Joe Biden's administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of that decision, saying it "threatens significant harm to public safety."

"We are happy with this decision and hope the ATF recognizes its duty to abide by the law as written, instead of unilaterally replacing statutory definitions with agency-created definitions, which wrongfully criminalize legal conduct," said Allan Cobb, a lawyer for the plaintiff, Louisville anesthesiologist Scott Hardin.

ATF declined to comment.

The ban was enacted under former President Donald Trump in response to a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in which the shooter used guns equipped with bump stocks to kill 58 people and wound hundreds more.

Bump stocks use a semiautomatic's recoil to allow it to slide backwards and forwards while "bumping" the shooter's trigger finger, resulting in rapid fire.

ATF determined in 2017 that the devices, which had previously been allowed, were machine guns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Federal law prohibits the sale or possession of machine guns, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Hardin claimed in his lawsuit that the rule went beyond ATF's authority. U.S. District Judge David Hale disagreed, ruling in favor of the agency.

Sixth Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote Tuesday that the 1934 law must be interpreted according to the "rule of lenity," which requires ambiguity in a criminal statute to be resolved in criminal defendants' favor.

"Because the relevant statutory scheme does not clearly and unambiguously prohibit bump stocks, we are bound to construe the statute in Hardin's favor," the judge wrote.

Circuit Judge David McKeague joined in the opinion. Circuit Judge John Bush wrote in a separate concurring opinion that the federal law was not ambiguous and clearly did not cover bump stocks.

The case is Hardin v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-6380.

For Hardin: Jason Hardin of Hardin Law Group and Allan Cobb of Cobb Law

For the government: Brad Hinshelwood of the U.S. Department of Justice

Read more:

Biden appeals ruling against ban on gun bump stocks

U.S. appeals court strikes down ban on bump stocks

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Brendan Pierson reports on product liability litigation and on all areas of health care law. He can be reached at [email protected].