Was the Supreme Court Right to Overturn the Bump Stock Ban?

On Friday, the Supreme Court overruled a federal ban on bump stocks. The ruling renewed debate across the political spectrum over the controversial firearm modification. 

From the Left: A writer in Salon (Left bias) stated, “One might hope a ruling that stands to inflict so much carnage would, at least, be indisputably compelled by law. It is not,” arguing that the ruling “tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands.” The writer argued the court misrepresented and unfairly dismissed investigations conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives on bump stocks that deemed semi-automatic weapons equipped with bump stocks to be classified as machine guns, which strengthened the legal case for a ban. 

From the Right: Charles C. W. Cooke (Right bias) argued the case “was not whether bump stocks count as ‘arms,’ but whether the National Firearms Act of 1934 grants the executive branch the power to regulate them in the same manner as it regulates machine guns. As the Court makes clear, the answer to this is unquestionably no. In consequence, the regulation must fall.” Cooke determined the ban only happened as a result of the 2018 Las Vegas shooting, stating, “That pressure was real. But it was not law.” Cooke concluded, “If one wishes, one can argue that Congress ought to have changed the law after the Nevada massacre. But it didn’t. And, because it didn’t, the executive branch” did not have the power to do so.