Colorado Lawmakers to Address Bump Stock Legislation After Supreme Court Ruling
Friday’s Supreme Court decision overturning the federal ban on bump stocks is expected to prompt Colorado lawmakers to address the issue when they return to the state capitol in January.
Currently legal in Colorado, bump stocks allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire multiple rounds rapidly after an initial trigger pull. This accessory was infamously used by the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, which killed 60 people and injured over 400 at the Route 91 music festival.
“I believe Colorado should have legislation that will address bump stocks and other trigger activators,” stated Democratic Sen. Tom Sullivan of Centennial. Sullivan, who entered politics after his son Alex was killed in the Aurora Theater shooting, has been a leading advocate for stricter gun laws at the statehouse for the past six years.
“Clearly there is no political makeup in DC that can effectively speak to the public health crisis that is gun violence so we will do it on the state level and do our part to save lives,” Sullivan told CPR News via text message on Friday.
Democratic Rep. Meg Froelich of Denver informed CPR News that a bill title to ban bump stocks has already been prepared for the next session, a preliminary step in crafting the legislation.
The Trump administration banned bump stocks in 2018. However, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the rule, deeming it administrative overreach. The court did not address whether the Second Amendment protects the right to own a bump stock.
In recent years, Colorado’s Democrat-controlled legislature has enacted several stricter gun laws, including increased training requirements for concealed carry permit holders, expanding the state’s red flag gun law, and instituting a three-day waiting period for gun purchases.
The last attempt to ban bump stocks in Colorado was in 2018 when Republicans controlled the state Senate, but it failed on a party-line vote in its first committee. In 2023, a sponsor of an assault weapons ban attempted to amend the bill to include a bump stock ban, but that effort also failed.
The Bump Stock Ban
Bump stocks are devices that significantly increase the rate of fire for semi-automatic rifles, allowing them to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. The Supreme Court case, Garland v. Cargill, examined whether the ATF overstepped its authority when it banned bump stocks in 2018 by classifying them under the 1934 law’s definition of “machine gun.”
Between 2008 and 2017, the ATF consistently ruled that bump stocks were not machine guns and therefore not subject to regulation under existing laws. However, the agency reversed its position after the 2017 mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival, where the shooter used bump stocks to fire up to 1,000 rounds in 11 minutes, resulting in 58 deaths and over 500 injuries. Following this tragedy and Congress’s failure to act, the ATF issued a new rule in December 2018 stating that a rifle with a bump stock is considered a machine gun because the device enables continuous firing with a single trigger pull by harnessing the firearm’s recoil energy.
The rule took effect in March 2019, requiring owners to destroy or surrender their bump stocks or face criminal penalties. Michael Cargill, who had purchased two bump stocks, surrendered them and sued the government. Initially, both a U.S. district court and a three-judge appeals court panel ruled in favor of the ATF. However, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit invalidated the ban.
Cargill’s case was not the only challenge. Another bump stock owner succeeded in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, while a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., upheld the ban. The Biden administration supported the ban, arguing that bump stocks effectively turn rifles into “dangerous and unusual weapons” akin to machine guns, banned in 1986.
The Supreme Court’s majority disagreed, emphasizing that the federal ban on machine guns remains intact. They pointed out that Congress could have defined “machine gun” based on firing rate but instead focused on whether a firearm can fire more than one shot automatically with a single trigger function.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, suggested that Congress amend the 1934 law, noting that the Las Vegas tragedy underscores the need for such legislative action. The decision sparked criticism from gun violence prevention groups, who argued that bump stocks pose significant risks and should be banned.
John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, stated, “Guns outfitted with bump stocks fire like machine guns, they kill like machine guns, and they should be banned like machine guns — but the Supreme Court just decided to put these deadly devices back on the market. We urge Congress to right this wrong and pass bipartisan legislation banning bump stocks, which are accessories of war that have no place in our communities.”
Source: AP News
