Garland v. Cargill Revisions: 6/14/24

Background

The dispute involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Michael Cargill, who surrendered two bump stocks under protest and sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. ATF had long treated bump stocks as lawful accessories but changed course after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting and issued a final Rule ordering owners to destroy or surrender bump stocks. Lower courts split, and the Fifth Circuit en banc held the Rule unlawful. The Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a bump stock converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun under the National Firearms Act’s definition. The majority concluded it does not. First, each shot on a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle still results from a separate trigger function because the trigger must release and reset between shots. Second, even if shots resulted from a single trigger action, the weapon would not fire automatically because the shooter must maintain forward pressure. Because the Rule reclassified bump stocks as machineguns, the Court held ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

Real world impact

The decision invalidates ATF’s 2018 Rule that required owners to destroy or surrender bump stocks. It narrows ATF’s power to reclassify commonly sold accessories as machineguns without clear congressional authorization. The opinion and a concurrence note Congress remains free to amend the law if it wants a broader ban.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized the Las Vegas shooting, argued bump stocks produce continuous fire with a single pull and forward pressure, and urged a broader reading to avoid easy evasion of the statute.