{{Short description|Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing}} {{Use mdy dates|date=June 2024}} [[File:Slide Fire Solutions Slidefire Stock on a GP WASR-10 AK-47 (no watermark).JPG|thumb|A Slide Fire Solutions bump fire stock on a WASR-10 semi-automatic rifle]] thumb|WASR-10 rifle ''without'' a bump stock fitted
'''Bump stocks''' or '''bump fire stocks''' are gun stocks that can be used to assist in '''bump firing''', the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.
The legality of bump stocks in the United States came under question<ref name=veconomist/><ref name=GunControlBumpFire/><ref name=ATFAbility/> following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, in which 60 people were killed and 867 people injured.<ref name="59th Victim">{{cite news|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/california-woman-declared-59th-victim-of-2017-massacre-in-las-vegas-2102779/|title=California woman declared 59th victim of 2017 massacre in Las Vegas|publisher=The Las Vegas Review-Journal|last=Lacanlale|first=Rio|date=24 August 2020|access-date=27 August 2020|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230323133937/https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/california-woman-declared-59th-victim-of-2017-massacre-in-las-vegas-2102779/|archive-date=23 March 2023}}</ref><ref name="60th Victim">{{cite news|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/las-vegas-woman-becomes-60th-victim-of-october-2017-mass-shooting-2123456/|title=Las Vegas woman becomes 60th victim of October 2017 mass shooting|publisher=The Las Vegas Review-Journal|last=Lacanlale|first=Rio|date=17 September 2020|access-date=17 September 2020|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230307033552/https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/las-vegas-woman-becomes-60th-victim-of-october-2017-mass-shooting-2123456/|archive-date=7 March 2023}}</ref><ref name="auto000">{{Cite web|url=https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf|title=LVMPD Criminal Investigative Report of the 1 October Mass Casualty Shooting|access-date=13 March 2020|via=www.lvmpd.com|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425094403/https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf|archive-date=25 April 2023}}</ref> The gunman was found to have fitted bump stocks to his weapons, though no evidence was reported in which any of these specific weapons were actually used in the shooting.<ref name=NYTBumpStock/> Several states passed legislation restricting ownership of bump stocks following this shooting. In December 2018, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published a rule that bump stocks constituted "machine guns", and thus were illegal under federal law. The Supreme Court vacated this regulation in June 2024 in ''Garland v. Cargill''. Bump stocks remain illegal in 15 states and the District of Columbia based on state bans not affected by the Supreme Court ruling.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bump Stock Legality by State 2024 |url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/bump-stock-legality-by-state |access-date=2024-06-18 |website=worldpopulationreview.com |archive-date=June 18, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240618182050/https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/bump-stock-legality-by-state |url-status=live }}</ref>
==Bump fire stocks== [[File:Bump fire animation.gif|thumb|right|A bump stock causes the trigger (red) to be actuated when the receiver moves forward, being reset each round by receiver recoil. This allows semi-automatic firearms to somewhat mimic fully automatic weapons.]] Bump fire stocks are gun stocks that are specially designed to make bump firing easier, but do not make the firearm automatic.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html|title=Bump stock: The device found on Las Vegas shooter's guns|first=Nicole |last=Chavez |publisher=CNN|access-date=2017-10-06|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422020026/http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> Essentially, bump stocks assist rapid fire by "bumping" the trigger against one's finger (as opposed to one's finger pulling on the trigger), thus allowing the firearm's recoil, plus constant forward pressure by the non-shooting arm, to actuate the trigger. Bump fire stocks can be placed on a few common weapons such as the AR or AK families. They can achieve rates of fire between 400 and 800 rounds per minute depending on the gun.<ref name=veconomist/> By 2018, bump fire stocks in the United States were sold for around $100 and up, with prices increasing prior to enactment of federal regulation.<ref name=veconomist>{{cite news|title=The "bump stocks" used in the Las Vegas shooting may soon be banned|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/10/daily-chart-3|newspaper=The Economist|date=6 October 2017|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422205524/https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/10/06/the-bump-stocks-used-in-the-las-vegas-shooting-may-soon-be-banned|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref><ref name="Berr">{{cite web|last1=Berr|first1=Jonathan|title=Bump stock prices soar ahead of potential federal ban|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bump-stock-prices-soar-ahead-of-potential-federal-ban/|work=CBS News|date=February 22, 2018 |access-date=11 April 2018|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422175221/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bump-stock-prices-soar-ahead-of-potential-federal-ban/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref>
Slide Fire Solutions, the inventor, patent holder, and leading manufacturer of bump stocks, suspended sales after bump stocks were used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, but resumed sales a month later.<ref name=npr20171107>{{cite news |title=Bump Stock Manufacturer To Resume Sales Of Controversial Device |date=7 November 2017 |access-date=24 July 2018 |work=All Things Considered |first=Brian |last=Mann |agency=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562619837/bump-stock-manufacturer-to-resume-sales-of-controversial-device|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030707/https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562619837/bump-stock-manufacturer-to-resume-sales-of-controversial-device|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref><ref name=guardian20171107>{{cite news |title=Leading bump stock maker briefly makes product available again |first=Jamiles |last=Lartey |date=7 November 2017 |access-date=24 July 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/07/bump-stocks-guns-las-vegas-shooting|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423144814/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/07/bump-stocks-guns-las-vegas-shooting|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> On May 20, 2018, 95 days after the Parkland high school shooting, Slide Fire Solutions permanently halted sales and production of its products even though bump stocks were not involved in the shooting.<ref name=npr20180418>{{cite news |agency=NPR |title=Bump Stock Manufacturer Is Shutting Down Production |date=18 April 2018 |access-date=24 July 2018 |first=Vanessa |last=Romo |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/18/603623834/bump-stock-manufacturer-is-shutting-down-production|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423120008/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/18/603623834/bump-stock-manufacturer-is-shutting-down-production|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> However, after the June 2024 ruling, Slide Fire announced they would resume the production of bump fire stocks.<ref>{{cite web | title=About | url=https://bumpstock.com/about/ | access-date=December 6, 2024 | archive-date=December 6, 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241206020622/https://bumpstock.com/about/ | url-status=live }}</ref>
==Regulatory status in the United States== thumb|Legality of bump stocks in the United States at the state level as of 2019. {{legend|#008000|Bump stocks legal}}{{legend|#FFA500|Legality unclear}}{{legend|#FF0000|Bump stocks illegal}} thumb|States banning bump stocks in 2024 Bump stocks are banned in California, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to Everytown for Gun Safety as of June 14, 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mannweiler |first=Laura |date=June 14, 2024 |title=Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban: What to Know |url=https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-14/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-what-to-know |work=U.S. News |archive-date=June 15, 2024 |access-date=June 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240615092123/https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-14/supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban-what-to-know |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Bump Stock Legality by State 2025 | url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/bump-stock-legality-by-state }}</ref>
==History of regulation== ===United States=== In 2002, one of the first bump stock-type devices, the ''Akins Accelerator'' invented by Bill Akins, was deemed by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to not be a "machine gun"<!-- This is the spelling used in U.S. federal law -->. The Akins Accelerator used an internal spring to force the firearm forward to re-make contact with the trigger finger after the recoil of the previous shot pushed the firearm rearward.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-guns-idUSKBN1CB2TF|title=Inventor of 'bump stock' spent years fighting for device, and lost|date=2017-10-06|work=Reuters|access-date=2019-04-01|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421221003/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lasvegas-shooting-guns-idUSKBN1CB2TF|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://dccircuitbreaker.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19-5042-1780398.pdf|title=GUEDES v. ATF|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401175629/https://dccircuitbreaker.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19-5042-1780398.pdf|archive-date=1 April 2019}}</ref> The ATF interpreted a "single function of the trigger" to mean a "single movement of the trigger", and since the trigger moved for each shot, the Akins Accelerator was deemed to not be a machine gun.<ref name=":2" /> Later, in 2006, the ATF reversed course and reinterpreted the language to mean "single pull of the trigger", which reclassified the Akins Accelerator as a machine gun. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the new interpretation in February 2009.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/08-15640/200815640-2011-02-28.html|title=William Akins v. USA, No. 08-15640 (11th Cir. 2009)|website=Justia Law|access-date=April 1, 2019|archive-date=April 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190401175531/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/08-15640/200815640-2011-02-28.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
More modern bump stocks were invented by Slide Fire Solutions founder Jeremiah Cottle as a replacement stock for people who have limited hand mobility.<ref name=cottle>{{cite news |last1=Dwyer|first1=Devin |last2=See |first2= Patty |last3=Gehlen |first3=Bobby |date=26 February 2024 |title=Machine gun or firearm toy? Bump stock creator speaks out ahead of Supreme Court hearing on ban|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bump-stock-creator-speaks-supreme-court-hearing-ban/story?id=107452624|work=ABC News|access-date=15 June 2024}}</ref> Such bump stocks have no internal spring and require the shooter to use their support hand to maintain constant forward pressure on the front of the rifle in order to achieve continuous fire.<ref name=":2" /> Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF issued ten letter rulings that classified bump stocks as a "firearm part", which are unregulated.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/business/bump-stock-innovator.html|title=Bump Stock Innovator Inspired by People Who 'Love Full Auto'|last=Hsu|first=Tiffany|date=2017-10-05|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-03-27|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423120008/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/business/bump-stock-innovator.html|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> However, in March 2018, as a result of the use of bump stocks in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, at the request of President Trump through executive order, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a plan to reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns" under existing federal law, effectively<ref name=":0" group="Note">Machineguns manufactured after May 1986 are illegal on the federal level, but pre-1986 ones remain legal in most states and are highly regulated. Since bump stocks were not invented until 2010, all existing supplies effectively become illegal if classified as a machinegun.</ref> banning them nationwide.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.axios.com/sessions-effectively-bans-bump-stocks-727c6a1c-2dc6-4497-abba-0d2c82fcfbf2.html|title=Sessions effectively bans bump stocks|website=Axios|date=23 March 2018|language=en|access-date=2018-03-24|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030707/https://www.axios.com/2018/03/23/sessions-effectively-bans-bump-stocks|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-proposes-banning-bump-stocks-branding-them-machine-guns/2018/03/23/8a62e050-2edd-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html|title=Justice Department proposes banning bump stocks, branding them machine guns|last=Horwitz|first=Sari|date=2018-03-23|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=2018-03-24|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401201803/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-proposes-banning-bump-stocks-branding-them-machine-guns/2018/03/23/8a62e050-2edd-11e8-8ad6-fbc50284fce8_story.html|archive-date=1 April 2018}}</ref> Only two states had banned bump stocks prior to the Las Vegas shooting. The final rule of the DoJ was issued on December 18, 2018.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46614001|title=US officially bans 'bump stocks' on guns|date=2018-12-19|access-date=2018-12-19|work=BBC News|language=en-GB|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424112635/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46614001|archive-date=24 April 2023}}</ref><ref name="SavageImposes">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html|title=Trump Administration Imposes Ban on Bump Stocks|last=Savage|first=Charlie|date=18 December 2018|website=The New York Times|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230416022810/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html|archive-date=16 April 2023}}</ref>
Bump stocks remained illegal for nearly all US civilians until the regulation was struck down on June 14, 2024, by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''Garland v. Cargill''.
====Public opinion==== Immediately following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, 72% of registered voters supported a bump stock ban, including 68% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats, according to a Morning Consult poll.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/upshot/a-bump-stock-ban-is-popular-but-experts-have-their-doubts.html|title=A Bump Stock Ban Is Popular With the Public. But Experts Have Their Doubts.|last1=Sanger-Katz|first1=Margot|date=12 October 2017|access-date=15 June 2024|last2=Bui|first2=QuocTrung|work=The New York Times|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230428182546/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/12/upshot/a-bump-stock-ban-is-popular-but-experts-have-their-doubts.html|archive-date=28 April 2023|url-access=subscription }}</ref> After the Parkland shooting, a 2018 NPR/Ipsos poll found that 81% of American adults supported and 62% strongly favored banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points.<ref name="npr20180302">{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/589849342/npr-poll-after-parkland-number-of-americans-who-want-gun-restrictions-grows|title=NPR Poll: After Parkland, Number of Americans Who Want Gun Restrictions Grows|last=Khalid|first=Asma|date=2 March 2018|work=Morning Edition|access-date=24 July 2018|agency=NPR|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516131846/https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/589849342/npr-poll-after-parkland-number-of-americans-who-want-gun-restrictions-grows|archive-date=16 May 2023}}</ref> Another poll, by CBS News, around the same time, found that 56% of American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.<ref name="cbs20180223">{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-laws-rises-divisions-on-arming-teachers/|title=Poll: Support for stricter gun laws rises; divisions on arming teachers|date=23 February 2018|access-date=24 July 2018|website=CBS News|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516055420/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-support-for-stricter-gun-laws-rises-divisions-on-arming-teachers/|archive-date=16 May 2023}}</ref>
==== 2018 Final Rule ==== The ATF ruled in 2010 that bump stocks were not a firearm subject to regulation and allowed their sale as an unregulated firearm part.<ref name=veconomist/><ref name=GunControlBumpFire>{{cite book|last1=Krouse|first1=William J.|title=Gun Control: "Bump-Fire" Stocks|date=10 October 2017|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, D.C.|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10801.pdf|access-date=12 December 2017|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421211315/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IN10801.pdf|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref><ref name=ATFAbility>{{cite book|last1=Peck|first1=Sarah Herman|title=ATF's Ability to Regulate "Bump Stocks"|date=11 April 2018|publisher=Congressional Research Service|location=Washington, DC|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10103.pdf|access-date=18 April 2018|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030710/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/LSB10103.pdf|archive-date= 23 April 2023}}</ref> In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, twelve bump stocks were found at the scene.<ref name=NYTBumpStock>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html|newspaper=The New York Times|title=What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?|orig-year=4 October 2017|date=20 February 2018|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516202848/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html|archive-date=16 May 2023}}</ref> The National Rifle Association stated on October 5, 2017, "Devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations", and called on regulators to "immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law".<ref name="First NRA Statement on 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting">{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41519815 |title=Las Vegas shooting: NRA urges new rules for gun 'bump-stocks' |date=2017-10-05 |work=BBC News |access-date=2017-10-05|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423031502/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41519815|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> The 2017 shooting generated bipartisan interest in regulating bump stocks.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/house-gop-showing-overwhelming-interest-in-curbelo-bump-stock-bill|title=House GOP Shows 'Overwhelming' Interest in Bipartisan Bump Stock Bill|first=Griffin|last=Connolly|date=5 October 2017|website=Roll Call|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20221215052330/https://rollcall.com/2017/10/05/house-gop-shows-overwhelming-interest-in-bipartisan-bump-stock-bill/|archive-date=15 December 2022}}</ref> On October 4, 2017, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to ban bump stocks,<ref name="veconomist" /> but it was not acted upon. Instead, on February 20, 2018, six days after the Parkland shooting, President Trump instructed the ATF to issue regulations to treat bump stocks as machine guns.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374722-trump-to-take-steps-to-ban-bump-stocks/|title=Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks|last1=Carter|first1=Brandon |first2=Lydia |last2=Wheeler |date=2018-02-20|work=The Hill|access-date=2018-02-20|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426124137/https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374722-trump-to-take-steps-to-ban-bump-stocks/|archive-date=26 April 2023}}</ref>
President Donald Trump blamed former President Barack Obama for having "legalized bump stocks", which he termed a "BAD IDEA",<ref name=TrumpBan>Dan Merica. "[https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/trump-bump-stocks/index.html Trump moves closer to banning bump fire stocks]". CNN, 23 March 2018. Accessed 10 March 2021. ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230421211315/https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/politics/trump-bump-stocks/index.html Archive])</ref> a claim which was found to be partly erroneous by ''USA Today'', with an ATF official involved in the decision saying neither Obama nor then-Attorney General Eric Holder advised the agency on its ruling and a constitutional law professor explaining that the administration did not possess the legal authority to ban the sale of the devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cummings |first=William |title=Trump blames Obama for legalizing bump stocks in a tweet. Is he right? |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/03/23/trump-tweet-blames-obama-bump-stocks/454520002/ |access-date=2022-05-25 |website=USA Today |language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174453/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/03/23/trump-tweet-blames-obama-bump-stocks/454520002/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> On March 23, 2018, at President Trump's request<ref name=TrumpBan /> the Department of Justice announced a plan to ban bump stocks at the federal level. The proposed change would reclassify bump stocks as "machine guns" and effectively<ref name=":0" group="Note" /> ban the devices in the United States under existing federal law.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.axios.com/sessions-effectively-bans-bump-stocks-727c6a1c-2dc6-4497-abba-0d2c82fcfbf2.html|title=Sessions effectively bans bump stocks|website=Axios|date=23 March 2018|language=en|access-date=2018-03-24|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030707/https://www.axios.com/2018/03/23/sessions-effectively-bans-bump-stocks|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> A notice of proposed rulemaking was issued by the ATF on March 29, 2018, and opened for public comments.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001|title=Regulations.gov|website=Regulations.gov|language=en-US|access-date=2018-03-31}}</ref> Over 119,000 comments were submitted in support of the proposed rule, while over 66,000 comments expressed opposition to it.<ref name="SavageImposes"/> On December 18, 2018, the final regulation to ban bump stocks was issued by the Department of Justice and published in the ''Federal Register'' on December 26.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices|title=Bump-Stock-Type Devices|date=2018-12-26|website=Federal Register|access-date=2019-03-27}}</ref><ref name="SavageImposes"/><ref name="FinalRuleText">[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf Bump-Stock-Type Devices], 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (26 Dec. 2018). ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114342/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf Archive])</ref> The final rule stated that "bump-stock-type devices" are covered by the Gun Control Act, as amended under the Hughes Amendment, which with limited exceptions, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to 1986. Since the bump-stock-type devices covered by this final rule were not in existence prior to 1986, they would be prohibited when the rule becomes effective.<ref name="SavageImposes"/> The ban went into effect on March 26, 2019, by which owners of bump stocks were required to destroy or surrender them to the ATF, punishable by up to a $250,000 fine and/or prison sentences of up to ten years.<ref name="SavageImposes"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/owning-a-bump-stock-can-now-get-you-10-years-in-prison/|title=Owning a bump stock can now get you 10 years in prison|last=Owen|first=Tess|date=2019-03-26|website=Vice|language=en|access-date=2019-03-27|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426205358/https://www.vice.com/en/article/3kg9bv/owning-a-bump-stock-can-now-get-you-10-years-in-prison|archive-date= 26 April 2023}}</ref>
A Freedom of Information Act Request by YouTuber "CheapShot" revealed the ATF received 582 abandoned bump stocks and 98 retained for evidence, out of an estimated 220,000 - 520,000 in circulation.<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=LEcEkhE7MPGTezEM&v=GXNmnunRS1g&feature=youtu.be |title=ATF FOIA Request "How many bump stocks turned in?" |date=2019-09-20 |last=CheapShot |access-date=2025-04-02 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherfinski |first=David |date=October 6, 2019 |title=Bump stock ban failure an omen for gun buyback plan |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/6/bump-stock-ban-failure-omen-gun-buyback-plan/#:~:text=Between%20the%20issuance%20of%20the,bump%20stocks%20were%20kept%20as |access-date=2025-04-02 |website=The Washington Times |language=en-US |archive-date=January 25, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250125154551/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/6/bump-stock-ban-failure-omen-gun-buyback-plan/#:~:text=Between%20the%20issuance%20of%20the,bump%20stocks%20were%20kept%20as |url-status=live }}</ref>
==== 2024 vacating of the 2018 Final Rule ==== On June 14, 2024, the 2018 final rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was vacated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the decision for ''Garland v. Cargill'' (2024). In that decision, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the six member majority, stated the 2018 final rule exceeded the ATF's statutory authority under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as a bump stock does not satisfy the Act's definition of machine gun.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Jouvenal |first1=Justin |last2=Marimow |first2=Ann E. |date=2024-06-15 |title=Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era federal ban on bump stock devices |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/14/bump-stocks-supreme-court-machine-gun-bruen-cargill/ |access-date=2024-06-15 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>
====State==== Prior to the federal ban effective March 26, 2019, some states had taken action on their own to restrict ownership of the accessory. Since 1990, the sale of bump stocks has been illegal in California. They were banned in New York with the passage of the NY SAFE Act in 2013, and more explicitly banned in early 2019.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/nyregion/gun-laws-new-york.html|title=New York Passes First Major Gun Control Bills Since Sandy Hook|last1=Wang|first1=Vivian|date=2019-01-29|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-08-01|last2=McKinley|first2=Jesse|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516210306/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/nyregion/gun-laws-new-york.html|archive-date=16 May 2023}}</ref> The device's legal status is unclear in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, and Puerto Rico.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-are-bump-fire-stocks-illegal-feds-states-weigh-bans-after-las-vegas-shooting/|title=Where are bump-fire stocks illegal? Feds, states weigh bans after Las Vegas shooting|work=CBS News|date=October 6, 2017 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421211315/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-are-bump-fire-stocks-illegal-feds-states-weigh-bans-after-las-vegas-shooting/|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref>
=====After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting===== In his final day as governor in January 2018, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed legislation making the gun accessory illegal in New Jersey.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/01/nj_bans_gun_device_used_in_las_vegas_shooting_afte.html|title=N.J. bans gun device used in Las Vegas shooting after Christie signs bill|date=15 January 2018|publisher=NJ.com|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230425231722/https://www.nj.com/politics/2018/01/nj_bans_gun_device_used_in_las_vegas_shooting_afte.html|archive-date=25 April 2023}}</ref> Massachusetts banned bump stocks after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.<ref name="guardian20171107" />
In March 2018, following the Parkland high school shooting, Florida enacted SB 7026, which, among other things, banned bump stocks.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/us/urgent-gun-measures-florida-state-legislatures/index.html|title=Florida Senate passes bill raising age to buy guns|work=CNN|access-date=2018-03-08|publisher=Athena Jones, Darran Simon and Carolyn Sung|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421211315/https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/us/urgent-gun-measures-florida-state-legislatures/index.html|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/10/17103874/florida-shooting-nra-gun-control-age|title=The NRA sued to block Florida's new gun law hours after it was passed|work=Vox|access-date=2018-03-13|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422205526/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/10/17103874/florida-shooting-nra-gun-control-age|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> The portion of the legislation banning bump stocks took effect in October 2018; possession in Florida is a third-degree felony.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/bump-stocks-have-been-banned-for-months-in-florida-but-is-anyone-listening-20190208/|title=Bump stocks have been banned for months in Florida, but is anyone listening?|first=Zachary T.|last=Sampson|date=8 February 2018|newspaper=Tampa Bay Times|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423132628/https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/bump-stocks-have-been-banned-for-months-in-florida-but-is-anyone-listening-20190208/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> Vermont passed a similar law in 2018, which went into effect in October 2018; possession in Vermont is a misdemeanor.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/government/2018/09/20/vermont-new-bump-stock-ban-gun-control/1304286002/|title=Vermont gun laws: What to know about new bump stock ban|first=April|last=McCullum|date=24 September 2018|newspaper=Burlington Free Press|archiveurl=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20230525020557/https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/government/2018/09/20/vermont-new-bump-stock-ban-gun-control/1304286002/|archive-date=25 May 2023|access-date=12 February 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Delaware,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://whyy.org/articles/delawares-bump-stock-ban-to-take-effect-after-buyback-events/|title=Delaware's bump stock ban to take effect after buyback events|access-date=2018-11-22|publisher=WHYY|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421213714/https://whyy.org/articles/delawares-bump-stock-ban-to-take-effect-after-buyback-events/|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref> Hawaii,<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Hawaii-lawmakers-pass-bump-stock-ban-481022581.html|title=Hawaii lawmakers pass bump stock ban|access-date=2018-04-28|agency=Associated Press|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174456/https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/content/news/Hawaii-lawmakers-pass-bump-stock-ban-481022581.html|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> Maryland,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://wamu.org/story/18/04/24/ban-bump-stocks-among-new-gun-regulations-maryland/|title=Ban On 'Bump Stocks' Among New Gun Regulations In Maryland|access-date=2018-04-28|publisher=WAMU|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230322162948/https://wamu.org/story/18/04/24/ban-bump-stocks-among-new-gun-regulations-maryland/|archive-date=22 March 2023}}</ref> Washington,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-signs-bill-ban-bump-stock-devices-those-used-las-vegas-shooting|title=Inslee signs bill to ban bump stock devices like those used in the Las Vegas shooting|publisher=Office of Governor Jay Inslee|access-date=2018-04-28|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230516093502/https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-signs-bill-ban-bump-stock-devices-those-used-las-vegas-shooting|archive-date=16 May 2023}}</ref> Washington D.C.,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/dc-council-approves-stronger-gun-laws/65-624036562|title=DC Council approves stronger gun laws|website=WUSA|date=December 18, 2018 |access-date=2019-07-01|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174453/https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/dc-council-approves-stronger-gun-laws/65-624036562|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> and Nevada<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/2019-legislature/nevada-gov-sisolak-signs-gun-control-bill-into-law-1687293/|title=Nevada Gov. Sisolak signs gun control bill into law|date=2019-06-14|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal|language=en-US|access-date=2019-06-16|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306043000/https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/2019-legislature/nevada-gov-sisolak-signs-gun-control-bill-into-law-1687293/|archive-date=6 March 2023}}</ref> have also banned bump stocks.
Some states that do not ban bump stocks may have localities that ban them, such as Northbrook, Illinois (April 2018);<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/northbrook/news/ct-nbs-assault-weapon-ordinances-approved-tl-0531-story.html|title=Northbrook bans bump stocks throughout village, concealed carry in businesses where alcohol consumed|last=Kukulka|first=Alexandra|work=chicagotribune.com|access-date=2018-06-22|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20221203221515/https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/northbrook/ct-nbs-assault-weapon-ordinances-approved-tl-0531-story.html|archive-date=3 December 2022}}</ref> Boulder, Colorado (May 2018);<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/388097-boulder-city-council-votes-to-ban-assault-weapons/|title=Boulder City Council votes to ban assault-style weapons|last=Gstalter|first=Morgan|date=2018-05-17|work=The Hill|access-date=2018-06-24|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426205611/https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/388097-boulder-city-council-votes-to-ban-assault-weapons/|archive-date=26 April 2023}}</ref> and others.
===United Kingdom=== In May 2019, the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 prohibited bump stocks in the UK.<ref>{{cite web |title=54 - Prohibition of certain firearms etc: England and Wales and Scotland |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/17/section/54/enacted |website=Legislation.gov.uk |access-date=24 June 2019|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424161847/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/17/section/54/enacted|archive-date=24 April 2023}}</ref>
===Australia=== In November 2019, the importation of bump stocks was banned in Australia.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Australian Government to ban import of bump stock devices |url=https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/jasonwood/Pages/import-ban-bump-stock-devices.aspx}}</ref>
==Federal lawsuits== Several gun rights groups have challenged the federal regulation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af|title=Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks|last=Balsamo|first=Michael|date=2018-12-18|access-date=2018-12-18|work=AP News|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424112635/https://www.apnews.com/6c1af80fb290472c89fb930e223505af|archive-date=24 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/gun-rights-activists-lawsuit-trump-bump-stock-ban|title=Gun Rights Activists Are Already Suing Over Trump's Bump Stock Ban|date=18 December 2018|website=BuzzFeed News|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230503235144/https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/gun-rights-activists-lawsuit-trump-bump-stock-ban|archive-date=3 May 2023}}</ref>
===Cargill (Supreme Court)=== {{main|Garland v. Cargill}} An Austin, Texas firearms store owner, Michael Cargill, sued ATF in 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, similarly challenging the authority of the agency to classify bump stocks as illegal machine guns. Cargill is also represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.<ref name="Romboy" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-03-25 |title=Gun rights activist Michael Cargill files lawsuit, surrenders bump stocks |url=https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/gun-rights-activist-michael-cargill-files-lawsuit-surrenders-bump-stocks/1876172877 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174039/https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/gun-rights-activist-michael-cargill-files-lawsuit-surrenders-bump-stocks/1876172877/ |archive-date=22 April 2023 |access-date=2019-03-26 |website=KXAN |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Flores |first=Christian |date=2019-03-25 |title=With bump stock ban taking effect, Austin man plans on fighting ATF in court |url=http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/with-bump-stock-ban-taking-effect-austin-man-plans-on-fighting-atf-in-court |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174043/http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/with-bump-stock-ban-taking-effect-austin-man-plans-on-fighting-atf-in-court |archive-date=22 April 2023 |access-date=2019-03-26 |website=KEYE}}</ref> The district court dismissed the suit in November 2020.<ref name="Romboy" /> On 14 December 2021, a unanimous three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Garza |first=Erik |date=2021-12-15 |title=Fifth Circuit upholds federal ban on bump stocks |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks/ |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421212436/https://www.courthousenews.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-federal-ban-on-bump-stocks/ |archive-date=21 April 2023 |access-date=2022-01-02 |website=Courthouse News Service |language=en}}</ref> On 23 June 2022, the court reversed the panel decision and took the case {{em|en banc}}. Oral argument was heard on 12 September 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=5th Circ. Grants En Banc Hearing On ATF's Bump Stock Ban - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1505680/5th-circ-grants-en-banc-hearing-on-atf-s-bump-stock-ban |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=www.law360.com |language=en}}</ref> On 6 January 2023, the court's full panel ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns and reversed the district court.<ref>{{Cite web |title=20-51016 |date=January 6, 2023 |url=https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230213083950/https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf |archive-date=13 February 2023}}</ref>
On June 14, 2024, upon appeal before the Supreme Court of the United States, the 2018 final rule was vacated in a 6–3 decision.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hurley |first=Lawrence |date=3 November 2023 |title=Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun 'bump stocks' |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466 |accessdate=3 November 2023 |work=NBC News}}</ref>
=== Other Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits ===
==== Gun Owners of America (Sixth Circuit) ==== In December 2018, Gun Owners of America sued the federal government in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, challenging the bump stock ban.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/gun-lobby-files-lawsuit-challenging-trumps-bump-stock-ban-1559886/|title=Gun lobby files lawsuit challenging Trump's bump stock ban|first=Gary|last=Martin|date=28 December 2018|work=Las Vegas Review-Journal|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174042/https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/gun-lobby-files-lawsuit-challenging-trumps-bump-stock-ban-1559886/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> On 21 March 2019, the group's request for a preliminary injunction was denied by the district court.<ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5020431269984540879 Gun Owners of America v. Barr] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210519144414/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5020431269984540879 |date=May 19, 2021 }}'', 363 F. Supp. 3d 823 (W.D. Mich. 2019).</ref> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court both denied a stay on the effective date of the regulation pending the appeal.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN1R9230|title=U.S. Supreme Court refuses to block Trump's gun 'bump stock' ban|date=28 March 2019|work=Reuters|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422175252/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKCN1R9230|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref>
Following oral argument in December 2020, the Sixth Circuit panel issued a 2–1 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on 25 March 2021.<ref name="GOA6thCir2021">''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6055638459636710841 Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210519145211/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6055638459636710841 |date=May 19, 2021 }}'', 992 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2021).</ref> The majority decision, written by Judge Alice M. Batchelder and joined by Judge Eric E. Murphy, ruled that (1) an agency's interpretation of a criminal statute is not entitled to ''Chevron'' deference, (2) bump stocks cannot be classified as machineguns, thus the ATF's rule is not the best interpretation of the law, and (3) the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their challenge, therefore the district court should have granted an injunction. The court remanded the case back to the district court for proceedings in accordance with its opinion (i.e., to issue an injunction).<ref name="GOA6thCir2021" /><ref name=":5">Brian Flood "[https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/federal-bump-stock-ban-blocked-by-divided-appeals-court Federal Bump Stock Ban Blocked by Divided Appeals Court]" Bloomberg Law, 25 March 2021. Accessed 26 March 2021.([https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114343/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/federal-bump-stock-ban-blocked-by-divided-appeals-court Archive])</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-03-26|title=Trump's Bump Stock Ban Just Lost Big in Federal Court|url=https://reason.com/2021/03/26/trumps-bump-stock-ban-just-lost-big-in-federal-court/|access-date=2021-03-27|website=Reason.com|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421211314/https://reason.com/2021/03/26/trumps-bump-stock-ban-just-lost-big-in-federal-court/|archive-date=21 April 2023}}</ref> Judge Helene White dissented, writing that the Supreme Court had previously applied ''Chevron'' deference to agency interpretations of criminal statutes in the cases of ''Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon'' and ''United States v. O'Hagan''.<ref name="GOA6thCir2021" /> The appeals court granted an en banc petition on 25 June 2021<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-06-25|title=Sixth Circuit Takes Bump Stock Case En Banc|url=https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/25/sixth-circuit-takes-bump-stock-case-en-banc/|access-date=2021-06-28|website=Reason.com|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174455/https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/25/sixth-circuit-takes-bump-stock-case-en-banc/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> and heard oral argument in October 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Full Sixth Circuit takes up legality of bump stocks|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/full-sixth-circuit-takes-up-legality-of-bump-stocks/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-11-04|website=www.courthousenews.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020220205/https://www.courthousenews.com/full-sixth-circuit-takes-up-legality-of-bump-stocks/ |archive-date=20 October 2021 }}</ref> On 3 December 2021, the court issued an 8–8 split decision, thus leaving the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in place.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Split en banc decision on bump stocks is a win for feds|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/split-en-banc-decision-on-bump-stocks-is-a-win-for-feds/|url-status=live|access-date=2022-01-18|website=www.courthousenews.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211203224919/https://www.courthousenews.com/split-en-banc-decision-on-bump-stocks-is-a-win-for-feds/ |archive-date=3 December 2021 }}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 3 October 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Docket for 21-1215 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1215.html |access-date=2022-03-14 |website=www.supremecourt.gov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114342/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1215.html|archive-date=18 April 2023}}</ref>
==== Firearms Policy Coalition (D.C. Circuit) ==== The Firearms Policy Coalition and other gun-rights groups sued in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., also seeking an injunction.<ref name="Flynn">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/26/bump-stock-ban-enacted-by-trump-administration-can-stand-federal-judge-rules/|title=Bump-stock ban enacted by Trump administration can stand, federal judge rules|first=Meagan|last=Flynn|date=26 February 2018|newspaper=The Washington Post|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328023204/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/26/bump-stock-ban-enacted-by-trump-administration-can-stand-federal-judge-rules/|archive-date= 28 March 2019}}</ref> In February 2019, U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich denied the Firearms Policy Coalition's request for an injunction, determining that the group had not put forward convincing legal arguments that the ban was invalid.<ref name="Flynn" /><ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5369598161125427005 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210520002001/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5369598161125427005 |date=May 20, 2021 }}'', 356 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019).</ref> The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of the regulation, but only as applied to the plaintiffs and their members.<ref name="GuedesApr2019">''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6932216717944352403 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210520002003/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6932216717944352403 |date=May 20, 2021 }}'', 920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019).</ref> A broader injunction was denied by the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Docket for 18A964|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18a964.html|access-date=2021-08-04|website=www.supremecourt.gov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114343/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18a964.html|archive-date=18 April 2023}}</ref>
On 1 April 2019, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in a ''per curiam'' decision, based largely on ''Chevron'' deference. The decision allowed the ban to go into effect for the plaintiffs. Judge Karen L. Henderson issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.<ref name="GuedesApr2019" /> A second stay application was denied by the Supreme Court on 5 April 2019, with Thomas and Gorsuch indicating that they would have granted the application.<ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18245556986690106098 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210520002002/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18245556986690106098 |date=May 20, 2021 }}'', 139 S. Ct. 1474 (mem.) (2019).</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/437593-supreme-court-rejects-bid-from-gun-rights-groups-to-delay-bump-stock/|title=Supreme Court rejects bid from gun rights groups to delay bump stock ban|last=Thomsen|first=Jacqueline|date=2019-04-05|website=The Hill|language=en|access-date=2019-04-05|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423120008/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/437593-supreme-court-rejects-bid-from-gun-rights-groups-to-delay-bump-stock/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari (petition for review) on 2 March 2020; Gorsuch issued a statement agreeing that the time was not right for Supreme Court review, but criticizing the D.C. Circuit's position and writing that "''Chevron''{{'}}s application in this case may be doubtful."<ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15408845744599627974 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives]'', 140 S. Ct. 789 (mem.) (2020).</ref>
The case then returned to the district court on the merits, and in February 2021, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding that ''Chevron'' deference applied; that ATF had the authority to state that the NFA's definition of "machinegun" includes bump stocks; and that ATF's interpretation of the statutory language was reasonable. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' Taking Clause and ''ex post facto'' clause claims, as well as their claim that the underlying statutes were impermissibly vague.<ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14181224848870205762 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210520002604/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14181224848870205762 |date=May 20, 2021 }}'', No. 18-cv-2988 (DLF) (D.D.C. 19 Feb. 2021)</ref> On 9 August 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban by reasoning that it was the best reading of the law without applying ''Chevron'' deference.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pierson |first=Brendan |date=2022-08-10 |title=ATF beats back gun rights groups challenge to bump-stock ban |language=en |work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/atf-beats-back-gun-rights-groups-challenge-bump-stock-ban-2022-08-09/ |access-date=2022-08-12|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030710/https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/atf-beats-back-gun-rights-groups-challenge-bump-stock-ban-2022-08-09/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Sullum |first=Jacob |date=2022-08-10 |title=D.C. Circuit upholds the bump stock ban |url=https://reason.com/2022/08/10/d-c-circuit-upholds-the-bump-stock-ban-saying-it-is-consistent-with-the-best-interpretation-of-the-law/ |access-date=2022-08-12 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030711/https://reason.com/2022/08/10/d-c-circuit-upholds-the-bump-stock-ban-saying-it-is-consistent-with-the-best-interpretation-of-the-law/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> A petition for an ''en banc'' rehearing was denied on 2 May 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |title=No. 21-5045 petition for rehearing en banc |url=https://cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/526C50B487671B80852589A3004E4770/$file/21-5045-1997449.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230513103956/https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/526C50B487671B80852589A3004E4770/$file/21-5045-1997449.pdf|archive-date= 13 May 2023}}</ref> The case is pending before the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Docket for 22-1222 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1222.html |access-date=2023-06-22 |website=www.supremecourt.gov |archive-date=June 22, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622194045/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1222.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
==== Aposhian (Tenth Circuit) ==== In 2019, W. Clark Aposhian, the chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, a gun rights group, sued the ATF in the federal district court of Utah over the bump stock ban, arguing that the promulgation of the regulation exceeded the ATF's statutory authority. Aposhian is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.<ref name="Romboy">{{cite news |first=Dennis |last=Romboy |url=https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/27/22252540/gun-advocate-fighting-bump-stock-ban-atf-federal-court-civil-liberties-second-amendment |title=Utah gun advocate still fighting to overturn federal bump stock ban |work=Deseret News |date=27 January 2021|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174456/https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/27/22252540/gun-advocate-fighting-bump-stock-ban-atf-federal-court-civil-liberties-second-amendment|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-trump-admin-sues-says-it-turns-1295855 |title=Gun rights advocate sues Trump administration over bump stock ban |first=Jenni |last=Fink |date=2019-01-17 |website=Newsweek|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422205521/https://www.newsweek.com/bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-trump-admin-sues-says-it-turns-1295855|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to block the ban in March 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ksl.com/article/46512089/judge-denies-utah-gun-enthusiasts-attempt-to-block-federal-rule-banning-bump-stocks|title=Judge denies Utah gun enthusiast's attempt to block federal rule banning bump stocks|website=www.ksl.com|language=en|access-date=2019-03-18|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174039/https://www.ksl.com/article/46512089/judge-denies-utah-gun-enthusiasts-attempt-to-block-federal-rule-banning-bump-stocks|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/18/federal-judge-denies-utah/|title=Federal judge denies Utah gun enthusiast's attempt to halt the upcoming deadline on bump stock ban|website=The Salt Lake Tribune|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-18|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422175847/https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/03/18/federal-judge-denies-utah/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> In March 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted a temporary stay that applies only to the plaintiff,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900061721/utah-gun-bump-stock-enthusiast-granted-temporary-stay-u-s-court-of-appeals.html |title=Utah gun enthusiast granted temporary stay of bump stock ban |last=Imlay |first=Ashley |date=2019-03-21 |website=DeseretNews.com |language=en|access-date=2019-03-22|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20191119224129/https://www.deseret.com/2019/3/21/20668942/utah-gun-enthusiast-granted-temporary-stay-of-bump-stock-ban|archive-date=19 November 2019}}</ref> but ultimately upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction.<ref name="Pampuro">Amanda Pampuro, [https://www.courthousenews.com/10th-circuit-backs-out-of-opening-phase-of-fight-over-bump-stock-ban/ 10th Circuit Backs Out of Opening Phase of Fight Over Bump Stock Ban], Courthouse News Service (5 March 2021). ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230422180254/https://www.courthousenews.com/10th-circuit-backs-out-of-opening-phase-of-fight-over-bump-stock-ban/ Archive])</ref> In April 2019, in a divided opinion, the Tenth Circuit denied the motion for a stay, and a divided panel upheld the district court's ruling. The appeals court granted review ''en banc'' (i.e., by the full court), but ultimately dismissed the grant of ''en banc'' rehearing as improvidently granted, allowing the panel decision (and thus the bump-stock ban) to stay in place.<ref name="Pampuro" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Bump Stock Ban Stays in Place as Appeals Court Drops|author=Martina Barash|date=5 March 2021|url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bump-stock-ban-stays-in-place-as-appeals-court-drops-review?context=article-related|work=Bloomberg Law|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210517092123/https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bump-stock-ban-stays-in-place-as-appeals-court-drops-review?context=article-related|archive-date=17 May 2021}}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on 3 October 2022.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Docket for 21-159|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html|access-date=2021-09-14|website=www.supremecourt.gov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418115846/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-159.html|archive-date= 18 April 2023}}</ref> On 29 September 2023, the district court upheld the rule under ''Chevron'' deference.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.113196/gov.uscourts.utd.113196.71.0.pdf|title=2:19-cv-00037-JNP-CMR|access-date=October 29, 2023|archive-date=October 4, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231004082444/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.113196/gov.uscourts.utd.113196.71.0.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
=== Takings Clause lawsuits ===
==== Maryland Shall Issue (Fourth Circuit) ==== In June 2018, the group Maryland Shall Issue filed a putative class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Maryland, challenged 2018 Maryland Senate Bill 707 which banned "rapid-fire trigger activators";<ref>{{Cite web|title=Maryland SB707: 2018 Regular Session|url=https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB707/2018|access-date=2021-05-18|publisher=Maryland General Assembly|via=LegiScan|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174039/https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/SB707/2018|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref> the plaintiffs alleged that the ban was an unconstitutional taking requiring just compensation, among other challenges. In November 2018, the district court dismissed the case.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Brandi Buchman|date=2018-11-19|title=Federal Court Tosses Challenge to Maryland Ban on Bump Stocks|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-court-tosses-challenge-to-maryland-ban-on-bump-stocks/|access-date=2021-05-18|website=Courthouse News Service|language=en-US|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030711/https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-court-tosses-challenge-to-maryland-ban-on-bump-stocks/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> In June 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit in a 2–1 vote.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Williams|first=Erika|date=2020-06-30|title=Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland's Ban on 'Rapid Fire Trigger' Devices|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/4th-circuit-upholds-maryland-ban-on-rapid-fire-trigger-devices/|url-status=live|access-date=2021-05-18|website=Courthouse News Service|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630111844/https://www.courthousenews.com/4th-circuit-upholds-maryland-ban-on-rapid-fire-trigger-devices/ |archive-date=30 June 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Kunzelman|first=Michael|title=Federal appeals court upholds Maryland's ban on bump stocks|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-bump-stocks-ban-20200629-5xat2sxfzbcxpm4n43qcgvdwbe-story.html|access-date=2021-05-18|website=Baltimore Sun|date=June 29, 2020 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423120008/https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-bump-stocks-ban-20200629-5xat2sxfzbcxpm4n43qcgvdwbe-story.html|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref> In May 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Docket for 20-855|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-855.html|access-date=2021-05-18|website=www.supremecourt.gov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114344/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-855.html|archive-date=18 April 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|work=AP News|title=Supreme Court won't take Maryland bump stock ban case|url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-maryland-las-vegas-mass-shooting-gun-politics-government-and-politics-8c51149a50935d3b1ee8d008fa6df3c3|date=3 May 2021|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174039/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-of-the-united-states-maryland-las-vegas-mass-shooting-gun-politics-government-and-politics-8c51149a50935d3b1ee8d008fa6df3c3|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref>
==== Federal claims lawsuits (C.F.C.) ==== Two similar lawsuits were filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims challenging the federal bump-stock ban—one filed by bump stock owners (McCutchen), the other by bump-stock suppliers (Modern Sportsman and RW Arms). Both were dismissed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://madisonrecord.com/stories/511716619-bump-stock-class-action-seeks-compensation-for-government-s-taking-of-property|title=Bump-stock class action seeks compensation for government's 'taking' of property|last=Maher|first=Ann|website=madisonrecord.com|language=en|access-date=2019-03-14|archiveurl=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20230523210500/https://madisonrecord.com/stories/511716619-bump-stock-class-action-seeks-compensation-for-government-s-taking-of-property|archive-date=23 May 2023|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/bump-stocks/ Brief: Bump Stocks], Courthouse News Service (24 September 2019). ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230422174042/https://www.courthousenews.com/bump-stocks/ Archive])</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/438066-gun-company-sues-us-over-bump-stock-ban-claiming-20-million-in/|title=Gun company sues US over bump stock ban, claiming $20M in losses|last=Anapol|first=Avery|date=2019-04-09|website=The Hill|language=en|access-date=2019-11-30|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422205526/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/438066-gun-company-sues-us-over-bump-stock-ban-claiming-20-million-in/|archive-date=22 April 2023}}</ref><ref name=Charles>Jake Charles [https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2019/10/litigation-highlight-no-compensation-for-bump-stock-owners/ Litigation Highlight: No Compensation for Bump Stock Owners], Duke Center for Firearms Law (25 October 2019).([https://web.archive.org/web/20230423030710/https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2019/10/litigation-highlight-no-compensation-for-bump-stock-owners/ Archive])</ref> In the latter case, the court held that the ATF Final Rule banning bump stocks "was promulgated pursuant to the police power to protect public safety and therefore not a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment."<ref name=Charles/> Both cases were unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. En banc petitions were denied and the Supreme Court denied review.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Docket for 22-25 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-25.html |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=www.supremecourt.gov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230213084249/https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-25.html|archive-date=13 February 2023}}</ref>
==== Lane (N.D. of Texas) ==== In Lane v. United States, a putative class action filed in the Northern District of Texas, the plaintiff challenges the federal bump-stock ban as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. After initially denying the government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court later dismissed Lane’s illegal-exaction claim but allowed the takings claim to proceed. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill, which invalidated the ATF’s bump-stock rule as exceeding statutory authority, the court has continued to address the case rather than maintaining a stay, and the Fifth Amendment takings claim remains pending.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Docket for Lane v. United States, 3:19-cv-01492 - CourtListener.com|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17026897/lane-v-united-states/|access-date=2021-09-14|website=CourtListener|language=en-us}}</ref>
=== Miscellaneous lawsuits ===
==== Hardin (Sixth Circuit) ==== Another challenge, filed in the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, was unsuccessful.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hardin v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al, No. 3:2019cv00056 - Document 35 (W.D. Ky. 2020)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kywdce/3:2019cv00056/110452/35/|access-date=2021-09-14|website=Justia Law|language=en}}</ref> The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case on 19 January 2023, and ruled on 25 April 2023, that bump stocks are not machineguns.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hardin v. ATF - No. 20-6380 |url=https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230502164705/https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0086p-06.pdf|archive-date= 2 May 2023}}</ref>
==== Doe (Federal Circuit) ==== A class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois seeking immunity for legal purchasers of bump stocks prior to the ATF rule change was denied by the court in June 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Gvillo|first=Heather Isringhausen|title=Yandle denies injunctive relief in bump stock class action|url=https://madisonrecord.com/stories/538865376-yandle-denies-injunctive-relief-in-bump-stock-class-action|access-date=2021-05-20|website=Madison - St. Clair Record|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230213084347/https://madisonrecord.com/stories/538865376-yandle-denies-injunctive-relief-in-bump-stock-class-action|archive-date=13 February 2023}}</ref> On 31 October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the ban.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Doe v. Biden |url=https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1197.OPINION.10-31-2022_2026406.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230213084607/https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1197.OPINION.10-31-2022_2026406.pdf|archive-date= 13 February 2023}}</ref>
==== Kalzahg (N.M.C.C.A.) ==== The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on 7 September 2021, that a bump stock does not fall under the definition of a machinegun. The ruling was not appealed by the government.<ref>{{Cite web|title=UNITED STATES v. Ali KALZAGH|url=https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2021/KALZAGH_202000087_PUB.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210910201805/https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2021/KALZAGH_202000087_PUB.pdf|archive-date=10 September 2021}}</ref>
== State lawsuits ==
=== Florida === Florida banned bump stocks in October 2018. A class action lawsuit challenging the ban as an unconstitutional taking requiring just compensation was unsuccessful in the Leon County circuit court in May 2019<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-05-16|title=Florida 'bump stock' ban lawsuit tossed out|url=https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-tossed-out|access-date=2021-05-24|website=WPTV|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230427080713/https://www.wptv.com//news/state/florida-bump-stock-ban-lawsuit-tossed-out|archive-date=27 April 2023}}</ref> and in the 1st District Court of Appeal in January 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Florida|first=News Service of|date=2021-01-28|title=Lawsuit over Florida 'bump stock' ban rejected|url=https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2021/01/28/lawsuit-over-florida-bump-stock-ban-rejected/|access-date=2021-05-24|website=WJXT|language=en|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20230423120010/https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2021/01/28/lawsuit-over-florida-bump-stock-ban-rejected/|archive-date=23 April 2023}}</ref>
==Patent infringement suit== Slide Fire Solutions filed suit against Bump Fire Systems for infringement of its patents on bump stock designs in 2014.<ref>{{citation|title=Case 3:14-cv-03358-M Document 1 Filed 09/16/14 |url=https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/10933507|access-date=3 October 2017|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190215050912/https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/10933507|archive-date= 15 February 2019}}</ref> The suit alleged that Bump Fire Systems infringed eight US Patents, for example, United States Patent No. 6,101,918 entitled "Method And Apparatus for Accelerating the Cyclic Firing Rate of a Semi-Automatic Firearm"<ref name="Pat1918">{{cite patent|country=US|number=6101918|title=Method and apparatus for accelerating the cyclic firing rate of a semi-automatic firearm|status=patent|pubdate=15 Aug 2000|fdate=12 May 1998|pridate=12 May 1998|gdate=|inventor=William Akins|assign1=William Akins|assign2=|url=https://www.google.com/patents/US6101918|class=}} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160604145101/http://www.google.com/patents/US6101918 |date=June 4, 2016 }}</ref> and United States Patent No. 8,127,658 entitled "Method of Shooting a Semi-Automatic Firearm".<ref>{{cite patent |country=US |number=8,127,658 |status=patent |title=Method of shooting a semi-automatic firearm |pubdate=6 March 2012 |gdate= |fdate=26 October 2011 |pridate=18 Nov 2009 |inventor=Jeremiah Cottle |assign1=Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. |assign2= |class= |url=https://www.google.com/patents/US8127658 }} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150311202810/http://www.google.com/patents/US8127658 |date=March 11, 2015 }}</ref> The suit was settled in 2016, resulting in Bump Fire Systems ceasing manufacture of the product in contention.<ref>{{citation |title= Slide Fire Solutions forces Bump Fire Systems Out Of Business |url=http://www.guns.com/2016/07/24/slide-fire-solutions-forces-bump-fire-systems-out-of-business |newspaper=Guns.com|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729082602/http://www.guns.com/2016/07/24/slide-fire-solutions-forces-bump-fire-systems-out-of-business|archive-date=29 July 2016}}</ref>
==Other lawsuits== Survivors of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting sued bump stock patent holder and manufacturer Slide Fire Solutions, claiming the company was negligent and that they deliberately attempted to evade U.S. laws regulating automatic weapons: "this horrific assault would not and could not have occurred, with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law-abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self defense."<ref name="npr20180418" /> The suit was dismissed in September 2018; the court determined that the bump stocks of the sort used by gunman Stephen Paddock to commit the murders, were "firearm components" rather than "firearm accessories" and were therefore subject to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law immunizing manufacturers and sellers of firearms from liability for harm "caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products".<ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/las-vegas-bump-stock-class-action-dismissed/ Las Vegas Bump Stock Class Action Dismissed] {{Webarchive|url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20230525020546/https://www.courthousenews.com/las-vegas-bump-stock-class-action-dismissed/ |date=May 25, 2023 }}, Courthouse News Service (18 September 2018).([https://ghostarchive.org/archive/p3Whe Archive]</ref><ref>[https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Bump-stock-DISMISSAL.pdf Order], ''Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP'', U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, 17 September 2018. ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230418114343/https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Bump-stock-DISMISSAL.pdf Archive])</ref>
==See also== * Glock switch * Gun politics in the United States * Hell-fire trigger * Recoil operation * Binary trigger * Trigger crank * Forced reset trigger * Slamfire
==Notes== {{reflist|group=Note}}
==References== {{Reflist}}
== External links == * [https://web.archive.org/web/20160811183212/http://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform SlideFire Website Archive circa. 2016] * [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/26/2018-27763/bump-stock-type-devices The Final Rule on Bump Stocks in the Federal Register] {{Firearms}}
Category:2017 Las Vegas shooting Category:Firearm actions Category:Gun politics in the United States