Garland v. Cargill, USSC No. 22-976, June 14, 2024, affirming Cargill v. Garland , 57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
ATF exceeded authority when it defined “machinegun” to include bump stocks.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits possessing or transferring a “machinegun,” which is defined as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The statutory definition of “machine gun” also includes ”any part designed and intended . . . for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.”
A bump stock is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at rates approaching those of a machinegun. Soon after the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people, where the shooter equipped his weapons with bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) amended the regulatory definition of “machinegun” to include bump stock devices. 83 Fed. Reg. 66514. The ATF ordered owners of bump stocks to destroy them or surrender them to the ATF. The amended regulation also subjected anyone who possessed or transferred a bump-stock to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1).
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the ATF exceeded its authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as “machineguns”:
We hold that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” because it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” And even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.”
This is a statutory interpretation case and did not concern the Second Amendment. Cargill turned on a technical analysis of the mechanics of a bump stock device – complete with illustrations — and whether it allows the shooter to “automatically” fire more than one shot by a “single function of the trigger.” The Court did not question that Congress could prohibit possessing bump stocks consistent with the Second Amendment; in fact, Justice Alito encouraged Congress to do just that in his concurrence. (Concurrence at 1). Implicit in the Court’s analysis is that it will strictly scrutinize any regulation for its adherence to statutory text.
