Did the Ithaca Model 37 save bump stocks? It certainly played a role. The Ithaca Model 37 allows the shooter to continuously hold the trigger back and fire each time the slide is cycled. Thus, the trigger was not “pulled” each shot, but there was a separate and distinct action required for each shot. The ATF admits the Model 37 is not a machinegun.
The Decision and Dissent
Reading both the Decision and Dissent from Supreme Court was enlightening. One of the most striking statements came from Justice Alito, in support of the majority, “The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning.”
Let’s face it though, that’s exactly what happened after a little push from the President.
Prior to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, ATF ruled that attaching a bump stock to a semiautomatic rifle did not constitute modifying the firearm to a machinegun. Then, after the shooting spree and at the behest of the Trump Administration, ATF reversed its ruling and classified bump stocks as machineguns. Justice Alito continued, “But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”
You can rewrite the language and highlight different interpretations of the words, but the fact remains, the ATF only reversed its decision because the Executive Branch of government requested it. The mechanics of the device were exactly the same. The impetus for the change was a single, horrific event, from one individual, and a call from the President.
You may support the ownership of bump stocks or oppose the devices. That is your choice. The true victory of the ruling has little to do with bump stocks. Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb summed it up the best, “The agency [ATF] has just been reminded that it can only enforce the law, not usurp the authority of Congress.”
Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc. The ATF has the authority to rule on the legality and function of new technologies, but it cannot then reverse its opinion at the whims of the current President… if the law needs to be amended, it must go through the Legislative Branch, Congress. It’s called the ‘separation of powers.’
Details Matter: The Scorecard
Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority with Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito joining.
Justice Thomas points out two reasons bump stocks do not qualify as machineguns — primarily the National Firearms Act of 1934. Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a “machinegun” is “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). The statutory definition also includes “any part designed and intended… for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.”
Bump firing a rifle is not automatic. It is not as simple as pulling the trigger to achieve a bump fire. Justice Thomas points out, “Bump firing is a balancing act. The shooter must maintain enough forward pressure to ensure that he will bump the trigger with sufficient force to engage it. But, if the shooter applies too much forward pressure, the rifle will not slide back far enough to allow the trigger to reset. The right balance produces a reciprocating motion that permits the shooter to repeatedly engage and release the trigger in rapid succession.”
This description, of the mechanics of a bump fire stock, outlines two separate actions — pull of the trigger and application of the correct amount of forward pressure (while using the hand grip to apply rearward pressure to the shoulder). This fact, in and of itself, demonstrates that a bump stock does not fit the definition of a machinegun.
When a bump stock is compared to the action of the Ithaca Model 37, both require the shooter to:
- Hold the rifle tight to the shoulder.
- Pull the trigger.
- Apply forward pressure to the forend to shoot more than one shot per pull of the trigger.
The ATF concedes this point but countered that that a bump stock ‘harnesses’ the power of the recoil, where the Model 37 requires more physical involvement by the shooter. Justice Thomas countered, “A law is not useless merely because it draws a line more narrowly than one of its conceivable statutory purposes might suggest.
“Moreover, it is difficult to understand how ATF can plausibly argue otherwise, given that its consistent position for almost a decade in numerous separate decisions was that §5845(b) does not capture semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks.”
Again, it was not the addition of a bump stock, it was political pressure for the purpose of creating feel good politics (A tragic event happens. To gain support from voters, a rule or law is passed to make the people feel as if lawmakers found a remedy that will prevent the tragedy from being repeated. However, in reality, nothing changed. In this case, a mass murderer would commit the crime regardless of the law.)
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent to this point would be laughable, if it was not so tragic.
“A shooter can also manually “bump” an AR–15 to increase the rate of fire by using a belt loop or rubber band to hold his trigger finger in place and harness the recoil from the first shot to fire the rifle continuously. To use a belt loop, he must hold the rifle low against his hip, put his finger in the trigger guard, and then loop his finger through a belt loop on his pants to lock the finger in place. With his other hand, he then pushes the rifle forward until his stationary finger engages the trigger to fire the first shot. The recoil from that shot pushes the rifle violently backward. If the shooter keeps pressing the rifle forward against the finger in his belt loop, the repeated backward jump of the recoil combined with his forward pressure allows the rifle to fire continuously.”
And here is the part I cannot imagine a Supreme Court Justice relying on…
“A shooter using this method, however, cannot shoot very precisely. He has neither the advantage of the sights to line up his shot, nor his shoulder to stabilize the recoil.”
Really? Is that her reasoning? Using a bump stock is more accurate, so it should be outlawed? First off, for all but those humans with superpowers, full-auto fire is anything but what I would call accurate. Second, and more importantly, where in the National Firearms Act of 1934 or Gun Control Act of 1968 does it mention “accuracy” as a criterion of what constitutes a machinegun? If achieving bump fire is as easy as attaching a rubber band or hooking your thumb to your belt loop, (both in common usage by the way), a bump stock is irrelevant to the argument — unless they are going to outlaw rubber bands and return humans to the animal world by cutting off our opposable thumbs at birth!
Of all the provisions Congress included in the National Firearms Act of 1934 — that the ATF and dissenting opinions are relying on to classify bump stocks as machine guns — where does it mention or define the rate of fire that makes a gun a machine gun? Simply because bump stocks “approach the rate of fire of a machine gun” does not make them machine guns under the current definition.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically defined a machinegun as a gun that could fire more than one bullet “automatically… by a single function of the trigger.” It did not specify, “a machinegun is a firearm capable of shooting ‘X number of rounds’ per minute.” Therefore, the dissenting Justices should not rewrite/misstating law to bolster their argument. However, it does reveal the weakness in their position.
In Justice Alito’s concurrence with the majority opinion he states, “…an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.
“There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law — and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”
The Weakness of the Dissent’s Argument
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Congress adopted a definition of ‘machinegun’ that captured ‘any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically… more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’”
Justice Sotomayor’s argument is shortsighted. Pick up a machine gun one handed and pull the trigger. You’ll fire multiple shots, most likely in an arcing pattern. Pick up a bump fire stock-equipped firearm and shoot it with one hand. The gun will only fire one bullet. Why? It requires additional actions (pulling the stock to the shoulder while pushing the forend forward) to cycle the trigger and fire additional shots.
Justice Sotomayor goes on to later state, “Semiautomatic weapons are not “machineguns” under the statute. Take, for instance, an AR–15-style semiautomatic assault rifle. To rapidly fire an AR–15, a shooter must rapidly pull the trigger himself. It is “semi” automatic because, although the rifle automatically loads a new cartridge into the chamber after it is fired, it fires only one shot each time the shooter pulls the trigger.
“A machinegun does not fire itself. The important question under the statute is how a person can fire it. A weapon is a “machinegun” when a shooter can (1) “by a single function of the trigger,” (2) shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). The plain language of that definition refers most obviously to a rifle like an M16, where a single pull of the trigger provides continuous fire if the shooter maintains backward pressure on the trigger.”
However, when the one-handed scenario is again applied, her argument fails. It is not a single pull of the trigger that increases the rate of fire. It is the rearward and simultaneous forward pressure that allows the bump stock to assist in cycling the trigger through the actuation/reset cycle that causes additional rounds to be fired.
Inexplicably, Justice Sotomayor seems to chide the majority by stating, “The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull, to hold that a “single function of the trigger” means a reset of the trigger mechanism.” Yet, multiple times in her arguments, Justice Sotomayor used “a single pull of the trigger”, a mechanical device and in no way attempts to be consistent that it is a function of the shooter.
This shows a lack of understanding of both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the operation of a firearm. The language, plainly written in the NFA of 1934 states “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Not a single function of the shooter to pull of the trigger).
Conclusion
For those who listened to oral arguments or read the transcripts from last October’s hearing, it was clear that a majority of the Court supported the effort to regulate bump stocks and classify them as something akin to a machinegun due to the rate of fire a shooter can achieve, and the devastation that may be caused in the wrong hands. But even considering this, the Las Vegas shooter would have passed any background test or additional scrutiny. Fully-automatic firearms are legal in Nevada. It requires more money and paperwork, but the outcome would have been the same.
The majority, often identified as the ‘conservative’ Justices, applied the wording of the law over personal prejudices — as it should be. The dissenting Justices subscribed to reinterpretations of language, misstatements of fact, and an outright dismissal of the language of the law to further their already weak position.
When asked, “Should bump fire stocks be classified as machine guns?” My answer is the same as most gun control questions thrown my way. Are you truly concerned with how fast someone can shoot, the type of weapon used, or the fact that a murder was committed. If your answer is murder, perhaps you should be seeking additional laws making murder more illegal — if you think that will somehow magically prevent a deranged person’s murderous intent.
While many look at this ruling as a victory for the Second Amendment, I fear how Congress will respond to the Supreme Court’s decision. Should the anti-gun members of Congress (primarily Democrats, but some Republicans) be in the majority, I do not believe they will limit a new law to bump stocks. They will not be satiated with one small bite, when they think they can get the whole pie… Do your homework and elect pro Second Amendment legislators or suffer the consequences and lose your rights forever.
@Bo – Fight or Flight? I dun no, read Bo’s memo. LOL
I think G. Gordon Liddy had Fight or Flight down to a science. Liddy being a revolver guy, always said: “If you can’t hit them in six, then it is time to get the H e L L out of there.” Which could be translated to: Fight until you are out of ammo, then RUN! When in doubt, read Bo’s memo. LOL
@ RICHARD PAUL MOORE: I dare say that there were things in play of which you were not aware. I speak of the Sympathetic Nervous System response commonly known as the Fight or Flight Response, which is commonly unrecognized up until it is revealed in “Spray and Pray” situations. Many people go through this and are seldom aware what has happened. There are situations where a certain level of excitement will cause excessive adrenaline release. Adrenaline is what is called a sympathomimetic catecholamine that exerts its pharmacologic effects on both on α and β Receptors. A simple explanation of what that means is it induces increased vascular smooth muscle contraction, pupillary dilator muscle contraction, and intestinal sphincter muscle contraction. Other significant effects include increased heart rate, myocardial contractility, and renin release via β-1 receptors. β-2 effects produce bronchodilation which facilitates better oxygenation in high stress circumstances.
I would say that very few people recognize these things as they are going on. But the pupillary dilator muscle contraction I mentioned leads to tunnel vision which may create extreme difficulty for the shooter in his search to acquire the sights on the firearm he is holding. The shooter who, because of the adrenaline release, is seldom aware this is happening, and in the excitement resorts to firing faster rather than slower.
Do not think I am casting aspersions on you as a shooter. It means you are human. Those who believe they are exempt from these effects of adrenaline release do not understand certain immutable traits of their humanity. One can, over multiple episodes of exposure to these kinds of stimulating situations become somewhat inured to these effects but the effects will still be evident in the form of elevated heart and respiratory rates. But as I said, it generally takes multiple episodes of this kind of stimulus. It is NEVER a one and done. I have BT, DT multiple times in the Army.
@Aaron: Bump stocks are not good for combat. In the Army, after I got out, the M-16 and M-4 weapons were modified to fire 3 round shot bursts rather than full auto because too many resorted to “Spray and Pray” in a firefight and never connected with any of the enemy. See the explanation on Fight or Flight.
As far as the Dems, the Surgeon General, APPOINTED BY BIDEN, has declared gun violence to be a Public Health Emergency and is calling for “more gun laws, including requirements for safe and secure firearm storage, a ban on assault weapons, universal background checks and effective firearm removal policies. It also says firearms should be treated like any other regulated consumer products, such as cars or pesticides.” (Source https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/health/surgeon-general-gun-violence-advisory/index.html) He says it is strictly a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE and definitely NOT a Political position because he just cares about your health. Leave it to the Dems to take a political position and deny that politics are in play. Not politics, MY @$$!
@LINN SHIPLEY – “Either Congress or the ATF&E (if given the authority under the 1934 Gun Control Act) could classify bump stocks as “dangerous devices,” just like…………, and sound SUPPRESSORS.”
Besides the issue the 1934 Act, is an INFRINGEMENT, as well as any “rules” resulting from it, and therefor unconstitutional, it still puzzles me how something with the potential “danger” of saving ones HEARING, was EVER classified as “dangerous device”? WHY should anyone be charged a $200 tax for protecting their HEARING? Obviously the flawed logic, of an un-elected committee. 🙁
Only “snowflakes” are “educated enough” to actually believe a suppressor, has the ability to make something like an AR in 5.56, WISPER! Like the “silencers” do in “real” movies.
@HZ: I don’t personally need one but have no objections to them. They don’t exactly “serve a purpose” per se other than they can be fun to play with if you have the ammo to play along with it. And if you do, cool, they make for some interesting fun if you have a place to use them.
@Linn Shipley: States can further tighten Federal regs… Feds says “X” is restricted by “Y” parameters… states can further that by saying “X” is restricted by “Y” and also “Z” and “ABC”. They cannot say “We don’t care if the Feds restrict “X” with condition “Y” because “Y” doesn’t matter to us and we choose to ignore it.” So even if bump stocks are Federally legal again, they can full well keep them restricted. Just like Kalifornia keeps a restriction on a long gun not having a detatchable mag AND adjustable stock or adjustable stock AND flash suppressor, or etc etc.
Interesting how many commenters don’t see a need or the value of a “Bump Stock”.
Constitutionality question aside, can anyone here explain the intended purpose of a Bump Stock? In other words, in what scenario would this be useful to have?
@Richard Paul Moore… so because you couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn if you were inside of it while using a bumpstock in a situation it was designed for… HUNTING… you cut your bumpstock in half and chunked it? Ever think someone else might’ve liked it? 🙄 @Aaron…. blame or don’t blame whomever. Political pressure caused the Executive Order which was BS. Bumpstocks may not serve a purpose for you, cool, don’t buy one. Sure, they’re not really good for a whole lot except having some fun. If you think they’re “good for combat” you’ve never used one or never been in combat. @Brian Miller: Congress already did that in 1934.
There is another option that needs to be considered. Either Congress or the ATF&E (if given the authority under the 1934 Gun Control Act) could classify bump stocks as “dangerous devices,” just like full-automatic firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and sound suppressors. Legal, responsible citizens can apply for a Treasury stamp costing $200, undergo an extensive background check, wait for the approval (my sound suppressor stamp took 9 months and 2 days; however, I understand it may be a shorter waiting time now). This appears to be a reasonable way to REGULATE the militia as required by the Second Amendment and demonstrated by the 1934 Act over the last 90 years.
Another consideration is that if the federal ban has been overturned, doesn’t that mean the 18 states that also banned bump-stocks committed an illegal taking? One state, Washington, choose to buy 1,000 bump-stocks from its citizens. Do the citizens of the other 17 states have any recourse for the illegal taking of their property?
Try thinking of D J T’s bump stock ban as “bait”. He put it out there for we the people to push back, we the people pushed back, and it has now gone all the way through the SC, and was overturned (meaning they are legal to own). Maybe he is showing the people the way to get rid of the acts of 1934, and 1968? Almost like it was a “plan”. Just a thought?
@RICHARD PAUL MOORE – yup, that’s the way I see it too. Best way to bring up new shooters, Safety first, then accuracy.
I would rather spend that ammo on making zero on an AR very, very finite, like say 100 rounds at 50 yards to be covered by a quarter. After that you are good all the way to 200 yards, and if you don’t get a hit? Well, now you know WHO the problem is. LOL
I had a bump stock and attached it to my AR-15 thinking it would be great to use on feral hogs, of which there are hundreds on my hunting property. It took some practice to get the push and pull needed to operate the system down, but after a few magazines I got it right. That evening about half an hour before sunset, 30 to 40 hogs came in to my blind. I blazed away at them, emptying a 30-round magazine. After that “spray and pray” session I was disappointed to see no dead hogs. I checked the ground with a flashlight and found not one drop of blood.
In marksmanship training in the military, I had been taught that carefully aimed fire is much more effective than spraying a lot of lead. That was a lesson I had forgotten until my failure on hogs brought it back to mind. The real value of automatic fire in combat is not to kill more enemy soldiers, but to force them to keep their heads down so they can’t shoot at you. Bump stocks are fun toys but have no practical use in hunting. All they do is burn a lot of expensive ammunition for little or no return. I cut mine in half and threw it away.
I own a ; AR 7, AR 15 and a AR 10. All of which have been fired at the range. I personally see NO reason to own a “Bump Stock” just to burn ammo at the range. But to each their own.
Why unless you are planning to go into combat do you need one ? Let’s not forget 45 signed Exec. order prohibiting them. Do NOT blame the Dem’s !
It’s time, legally, we begin to look at what a firearm can do to classify it as a machine gun. Are rates of fire the same?
Regardless if it’s an add onto the rifle or pistol for that matter.
In response to the comment made by
“TRUMPWANTSYOURGUNS”
When I was less than a teenager, being brought up by my parents, I was taught that guns were bad for the most part and only to be used by the military and police, and in the movies to portray the old day cowboys and cops and robbers. They had no other use. You could say I was indoctrinated or ignorant of the facts at the time.
Now that I’m adult and have learned the truth/fax/Constitution and also learned that my parents were misinformed. They lived in another time when you could leave the house front door unlocked all the time because people could be trusted. Which is not the case today. I myself have changed my view on the subject completely. I believe all firearms and their accessories (SBR’s & Suppressors included) are necessary and protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
So I’m hoping that President Trump has gotten smarter and more educated since his mistake in 2017 calling for the bump stock ban. And what would the alternative to President Trump be? Please don’t hang us all and your self by voting for anyone else.
Personally have no use for one. Can barely afford to keep my DPMS fed as is. 😆 But do I have a problem with them existing and being available for purchase? Nope. Congress has no business making a bumpstock illegal. Doesn’t affect and/or won’t change anything. Congress needs to keep their nose out of stuff like this and focus on something a little more important like the budget, healthcare, INFLATION… or maybe something that will most certainly be most important to the safety of the US Citizen like… I dunno, the price of tea in China. Ya know, REALLY make a difference. 🙄
The Las Vegas shooting as horrifying as it was, or any other mass shootings couldn’t have been stopped unless LE got very lucky. I think most of us would agree, the rapid fire we all heard was not from the AR platform.
Adding the bump stock to a rifle does not make it a machine gun. We know that because of who we are. Anyone not like us would have a different opinion, but opinions don’t matter here. Only the law matters. ATF making their own rules/laws is dangerous.
While I don’t need a bump stock they DONT make it a machine gun. I’ve seen people bump fire pistols and rifles without the stock. Support the second amendment. Thank you
In my humble opinion, Bump Stocks are a silly waste of money, but hey, if you want one, you should have one.
Can you believe this guy — “Prior to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, ATF ruled that attaching a bump stock to a semiautomatic rifle did not constitute modifying the firearm to a machinegun. Then, after the shooting spree and at the behest of the Trump Administration, ATF reversed its ruling and classified bump stocks as machineguns”
Trump 4 pres?
A model 27 Ithica does the same thing
“Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, etc.” Kind of seems like infringements. If so, does that make these acts, un-constitutional? Asking for my friends. 😉
I believe the Ithaca model 37 that was called a slam fire!
I worked ten years at IGC, and the old original model 37 would indeed function by holding the trigger and slam pumping the action to shoot without releasing the trigger.
This worked fine when shooting from the hip, but was not an accurate way to aim!
Later the government forced them to add an interupter into their design to make it impossible to fire the gun without first talking your finger off the trigger. All guns built afterwards had to confirm t o the new design.
I don’t recollect the exact year this occurred, or the serial number this began with, but all guns built afterwards had this feature!
My Ithaca 37 is pre-1978, so it has the slam-fire feature. I believe the 37s manufactured after 1978 have a disconnect now, and are no longer capable of slam-fire.
Thank you for your helpful discussion of the recent decision.
If Sotomayor and company are concerned about accuracy, they should be thankful the Las Vegas shooter wasn’t using a standard AR, for his kill total would most likely have been higher. Of course they would then argue for a ban on deadly sniper weapons. This sort of nonsensical debate never ends. It is a distraction from the fact that we cannot stop evil, we can only curb it a bit, and the current methods by which we do so are most specious.
I’ve never owned or wanted to own a bump-stock, but feel that if a individual wants to own one then they should be able to. It’s a novelty item that serves no useful function except to give a thrill to shooters.