The United States Court of Federal Claims ruled on June 5, 2026, in the case of The Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States (Docket No. 19-449), concerning the federal government's 2018 rule that required the destruction of bump stocks. This ruling affects manufacturers and owners of bump stocks, particularly Slide Fire Solutions, LP, which claimed significant losses due to the rule. The decision is significant as it addresses the balance between regulatory actions and property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose after a 2018 federal rule mandated the destruction or surrender of bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic firearms to fire more rapidly. Following a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, where bump stocks were used, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) classified these devices as machine guns. Plaintiffs Slide Fire Solutions and Jeremiah Cottle alleged that this classification led to the destruction of over 85,000 bump stocks, claiming that the government's actions constituted a taking of their property without just compensation.
The parties involved include The Modern Sportsman, LLC, and RW Arms, Ltd., who initially challenged the bump stock ban. Slide Fire Solutions, a manufacturer of bump stocks, later intervened in the case, asserting its ownership of the destroyed devices and seeking compensation for the loss of its intellectual property rights. The case has seen multiple legal proceedings, including a prior dismissal based on the police power doctrine, which holds that the government can regulate contraband without compensation. However, a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 declared the bump stock ban unlawful, allowing the case to be revived.
In its recent ruling, the court addressed several claims made by Slide Fire. The court determined that Slide Fire had sufficiently stated a claim for a physical taking of the bump stocks, as the government’s rule forced the destruction of property. Senior Judge Loren A. Smith stated, "Slide Fire has alleged that it destroyed at least 85,000 bump stocks... to comply with the Rule, the Court finds it readily plausible that Slide Fire may be entitled to just compensation." The court denied the government's motion to dismiss this claim.
However, the court dismissed Slide Fire's claim for the illegal exaction of the market value of the bump stocks, stating that the plaintiffs did not pay the government directly or indirectly for the destroyed property. The court noted that an illegal exaction claim requires a payment to the government, which was not the case here. The court ruled, "Slide Fire has failed to state a claim for the illegal exaction of the market value of the bump stocks at issue, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the illegal exaction of the bump stocks is GRANTED."
On the other hand, the court found merit in Slide Fire's claim for the illegal exaction of the costs incurred in destroying the bump stocks. The court agreed that the ATF's oversight of the destruction constituted an illegal exaction since the rule was deemed unlawful. Judge Smith stated, "Since every dollar spent by Slide Fire to destroy the bump stocks was saved by the government, Slide Fire has adequately alleged that it paid money 'in effect' and may recover directly under the Constitution." Thus, this portion of the government's motion to dismiss was denied.
Additionally, the court addressed Slide Fire's claim regarding the regulatory taking of its intellectual property rights. The court ruled that patents are indeed property protected by the Fifth Amendment. Judge Smith noted, "The Court concludes that patents are protected property rights," affirming that the government cannot take intellectual property without just compensation. The court found that Slide Fire had adequately pleaded a regulatory taking, allowing this aspect of the case to proceed.
The impact of this ruling is significant for manufacturers and owners of bump stocks, as it reinforces the notion that regulatory actions must consider property rights. The decision highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding gun control regulations and the rights of individuals and businesses affected by such laws. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving the balance between regulatory authority and property rights, particularly in the context of intellectual property.
Looking ahead, the case may still be appealed, as the government has the option to contest the court's findings. Additionally, the outcome of this case could influence similar pending cases related to firearm regulations and property rights. The legal landscape surrounding gun control continues to evolve, and this ruling may play a crucial role in shaping future legislation and judicial interpretations.