Garland v. Cargill:  ATF exceeded statutory authority in banning bump stocks

By Greg Mermelstein, Deputy Director & General Counsel, Missouri Public Defender

           The ATF lacked statutory authority to ban bump stocks because they do not meet the statutory definition of “machine guns” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 14 in Garland v. Cargill.

           The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5845(b), defines “machine gun” as a firearm that has the ability to shoot “automatically” more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”

           Machine guns operate by allowing a shooter to fire multiple times, or continuously, with a single pull of the trigger.

           Semiautomatic firearms require a shooter to release and reengage the trigger to fire another shot. 

           Machine guns are banned by statute, but semiautomatic firearms are not. 

           A “bump stock” is an accessory for a semiautomatic firearm that allows a shooter to more quickly manipulate the trigger to enable faster firing, but the trigger still must be released and reengaged with each shot.

           For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took the position that bump stocks were not machine guns.

           But after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017 in which a gunman killed 58 people and injured more than 500 using semiautomatic weapons equipped with bump stocks, the ATF reversed course.

           The ATF adopted a regulation defining “machine gun” to include bump stock devices.

           The ATF gave bump stock owners 90 days to destroy or surrender them to the ATF.  Owners who refused would be subject to criminal prosecution.

           Michael Cargill surrendered his two bump stocks under protest, but then filed suit claiming ATF lacked statutory authority for its regulation.

           The district court ruled for the ATF, but the Fifth Circuit reversed.

           The Supreme Court granted cert. to resolve a circuit split.

Holding

           In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court held the ATF lacked authority for its regulation because bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of machine guns. 

           “As always, we start with the statutory text, which refers to a single function of the trigger”, the Court said.

           A bump stock does not change the firing cycle of a semiautomatic firearm, the Court said.

           “Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot”, the Court said.  “A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate ‘functions’ of the trigger.”

           “A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does”, the Court said.

           “Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’ it would not do so ‘automatically’”, which is another requirement of Section 5845(b), the Court said.

           “We conclude that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger’”, the Court said.

Other Opinions

           Justice Alito concurred, but noted there “is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns.”

           “Congress can amend the law – and perhaps would have done so if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation”, Alito said.  “Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

           Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.

           The Court “casts aside Congress’s definition of ‘machine gun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose”, Sotomayor said.   “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck”, she said.