Senator Lindsey Graham’s Pivot on Bump Stock Legislation in Wake of Supreme Court Decision

Following a significant Supreme Court decision which invalidated an ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) regulation on bump stocks, Senator Lindsey Graham, a senior Republican figure, has shifted his stance on regulating these controversial gun accessories. Previously, in the aftermath of the devastating 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Graham was among those who supported initiatives to ban bump stocks, devices that essentially allow semiautomatic firearms to fire more like automatic weapons. However, the recent judicial ruling has led Graham to oppose new legislative efforts aimed at controlling the sale and ownership of bump stocks, which were used by the Las Vegas gunman to deadly effect, causing the highest number of casualties in a single shooting event in recent U.S. history.

The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted a legal interpretation, concluding that bump stocks do not transform semiautomatic firearms into automatic weapons in a manner that violates the National Firearms Act. This legal perspective directly challenges prior ATF restrictions, fundamentally altering the landscape of firearm accessory regulation. Nevertheless, the Court’s ruling leaves room for Congress to enact specific legislation targeting the sale and distribution of bump stocks. Seizing this opportunity, Senator Martin Heinrich proposed a bill aimed squarely at banning “unlawful machine gun parts,” including bump stocks, reaffirming the legislative branch’s role in regulating firearms.

In a stark turnaround from his post-Las Vegas stance, Senator Graham has made clear his intention to block any swift movement of Heinrich’s bill through Congress. Graham’s current position underscores a significant policy shift, illustrating the complex dynamics at play in the ongoing debate over gun control and the regulation of firearm accessories in the United States. His opposition to what he previously championed as a common-sense measure against gun violence brings to light the nuanced and often contentious interactions between legislative actions, judicial interpretations, and individual lawmaker’s stances in the ever-evolving discourse on public safety and second amendment rights.