Facts of the Case
For over a decade, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) maintained that bump stocks were not machineguns as defined by statute, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), and issued interpretation letters confirming this position. Following the October 1, 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where a shooter used bump stocks in a massacre, public demand for a ban on bump stocks surged, leading to proposed legislation. Before Congress could act, the ATF, responding to the tragedy and public sentiment, reversed its stance in 2018, reclassifying bump stocks as machineguns and exposing owners to criminal liability. Respondent Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks due to this new regulation and filed a lawsuit challenging the ATF regulations, arguing that the ATF exceeded its authority in defining bump stocks as machineguns.
The district court for the government, finding that the government’s new interpretation of “machinegun” is the best interpretation of the statute. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, but on rehearing, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc reversed. The en banc court found the definition of "machinegun" as unambiguously not applying to bump stocks, but even if it were ambiguous, the rule of lenity would compel a construction of the statute in Cargill’s favor.
Questions
Is a bump stock device a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)?
Conclusions
-
ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.
First, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the physical movement of the trigger that activates the firing mechanism. With or without a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle requires the trigger to be released and reset between each shot. The bump stock merely accelerates the rate of fire by causing these distinct trigger functions to occur in rapid succession, but it does not change the fundamental operation of the firearm. Each shot still requires a separate trigger function.
Second, even if a bump stock-equipped rifle could fire multiple shots by a single trigger function, it would not do so “automatically” as required by the statute. Firing multiple shots with a bump stock requires ongoing manual input from the shooter, who must maintain the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. This additional manual input goes beyond the “single function of the trigger” specified in the statute. In contrast, with a traditional machinegun, simply holding down the trigger causes continuous fire without additional manipulation. Because a bump stock requires this extra physical input, it does not meet the “automatically” requirement of the statutory definition.
Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion suggesting that Congress can amend § 5845(b) if it wants to treat semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks as the same as machineguns.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, arguing that the majority adopts a narrow understanding of “machinegun” that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.
Garland v. Cargill: The Court’s Textualists Stick to Their Guns
Because it involves guns, Cargill v. Garland has been seen by supporters and opponents alike...
Garland v. Cargill: The Court’s Textualists Stick to Their Guns
Because it involves guns, Cargill v. Garland has been seen by supporters and opponents alike...
Garland v. Cargill - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Robert Leider and Stephen Halbrook
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The...
Garland v. Cargill - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Robert Leider and Stephen Halbrook
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The...
A Seat at the Sitting - February 2024
The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting...
A Seat at the Sitting - February 2024
The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting...
