On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns and, thus, banned. Justice Thomas authored the opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor authored the dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
As summarized in Dykema’s March 2024 edition, the ATF had previously maintained that bump stocks are not machineguns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Following the Las Vegas shooting in 2017, there was a surge in public support for the ban of bump stocks. In response, the ATF classified bump stocks as machineguns in 2018—exposing bump stock owners to criminal liability. Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stock and then challenged the ATF’s regulations in court. He argued that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority. The district court disagreed and upheld ATF’s reclassification, and a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed. After rehearing the case en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed the panel decision, holding that the definition of machineguns did not apply to bump stocks.
The Supreme Court agreed. Beginning with the statute’s definition of a machinegun as a weapon that can automatically shoot more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, the Court explained that a bump stock does not give the firearm’s user the ability to shoot more than one shot through a single trigger function. Instead, as the Court noted, a bump stock allows a shooter to accelerate the rate of fire by permitting each individual trigger function to occur in rapid succession without requiring the shooter to depress and reengage the trigger after every shot. In essence, the bump stock allows the firearm to move back into the shooters finger, thereby reengaging the trigger itself. Under the statutory definition, therefore, a bump stock is not a machinegun because the trigger must still be reengaged after each shot. Thus, the Court held that the ATF’s rule classifying a bump stock as a machinegun exceeded its statutory authority.
Justice Thomas concluded the opinion by highlighting Congress’s ability to rewrite the definition of machinegun to encompass firearms with bump stocks. Justice Alito echoed that point in a concurrence: “[n]ow that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent focused not on the action of the trigger but on the action of the shooter. According to the dissent, because bump stocks allow a shooter to engage in each individual trigger function at a rapid rate, they should be considered machineguns under the meaning of § 5845(b).
Takeaways
- Bump stocks cannot be interpreted as machineguns under the current statute.
- Congress may ban bump stocks by amending the statute.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, Puja Valera, or A. Joseph Duffy, IV.