Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al., v. Michael Cargill

Statue

Notable Items:

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Bump stock w/forward pressure provided by inanimate object (rubber strap).
Gatling guns.
Chain guns.
Others....

First patented as the "Akins Accelerator" in 2000. Idea formed in 1996. An unusual weapon at the time. Affray laws apply? See discussion of affray in United States v. Rahimi, (2024) .

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Material Facts:

• A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

Rationale

Thomas Majority Opinion (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett)

• Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every “function of the trigger.” So, a bump stock cannot qualify as a machinegun under §5845(b)’s definition.
• According to ATF, all the shooter must do is keep his trigger finger stationary on the bump stock’s ledge and maintain constant forward pressure on the front grip to continue firing.
• ATF and the dissent seek to call the shooter’s initial trigger pull a “function of the trigger” while ignoring the subsequent “bumps” of the shooter’s finger against the trigger before every additional shot.
• But, §5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. [emphasis added]
• The statutory definition instead hinges on how many shots discharge when the shooter engages the trigger. [emphasis added]
• Section 5845(b) asks only whether a weapon fires more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”
• A full description of the rationale is available below

Alito Concurrance (xxx)

• The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning.
• There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns.
• Congress can amend the law ....

Sotomayor Dissent (Kagan, Jackson)

• Shortly after the Las Vegas massacre, the Trump administration, with widespread bi-partisan support, banned bump stocks as machineguns under the statute.
• Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands.
• A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b).
• Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent.
• I A
• [some history of machineguns]
• I B
• [mechanics of bump firing]
• As long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger on the finger rest and maintains constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel or front grip, the weapon will fire continuously.
• II
• A weapon is a “machinegun” when a shooter can (1) “by a single function of the trigger,” (2) shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b).
• The definition of “machinegun” also includes “any part designed and intended ... for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.”
• That language naturally covers devices like bump stocks, which “conver[t]” semiautomatic rifles so that a single pull of the trigger provides continuous fire as long as the shooter maintains forward pressure on the gun.
• A bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle is a machinegun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure.
• The majority looks to the internal mechanism that initiates fire, rather than the human act of the shooter’s initial pull .... [emphasis added]
• By casting aside the statute’s ordinary meaning both at the time of its enactment and today, the majority eviscerates Congress’s regulation of machineguns and enables gun users and manufacturers to circumvent federal law.
• II A
• Start with the phrase “single function of the trigger.” All the tools of statutory interpretation, including dictionary definitions, evidence of contemporaneous usage, and this Court’s prior interpretation, point to that phrase meaning the initiation of the firing sequence by an act of the shooter, whether via a pull, push, or switch of the firing mechanism.
• The majority nevertheless interprets “function of the trigger” as “the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism.”
• That reading fixates on a firearm’s internal mechanics while ignoring the human act on the trigger referenced by the statute.
• The most important “function” of a “trigger” is what it enables a shooter to do; what “force or mechanism” it sets “in action.”
• ... if a shooter must activate the trigger only a single time to initiate a firing sequence that will shoot “automatically more than one shot,” that firearm is a “machinegun.” §5845(b).
• In Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), the Court noted that “a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger” is a machinegun, as opposed to “a weapon that fires only one shot with each pull of the trigger,” which is (at most) a semiautomatic firearm. Id., at 602, n. 1
• Just as the shooter of an M16 need only pull the trigger and maintain backward pressure (on the trigger), a shooter of a bump-stock-equipped AR–15 need only pull the trigger and maintain forward pressure (on the gun).
• Both rifles require only one initial action (that is, one “single function of the trigger”) from the shooter combined with continuous pressure to activate continuous fire.
• The majority resists this ordinary understanding of the term “function of the trigger” with two technical arguments.
• In 1934 as now, there is no commonsense difference between a firearm where a shooter must hold down a trigger or flip a switch to initiate rapid fire and one where a shooter must push on the front grip or barrel to do the same.
• II B
• Next, consider what makes a machinegun “automatic.” Put simply, the bump stock automates the process of firing more than one shot.
• In a fully automatic rifle like an M16, that automation is internal. After a shooter pulls the trigger, if he maintains continuous backward pressure on the trigger, the curved lever itself will not move. Instead, an internal mechanism allows continuous fire. \
• On a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle, the automation is external. After a shooter pulls the trigger, if he maintains continuous forward pressure on the gun, the bump stock harnesses the recoil to move the curved lever back and forth against his finger. That external automated motion creates continuous fire.
• Requiring continuous pressure for continuous fire, however, does not prevent a firearm from “shoot[ing], automatically more than one shot.” §5845(b)
• II C
• This Court has repeatedly avoided interpretations of a statute that would facilitate its ready “evasion” or “enable offenders to elude its provisions in the most easy manner.”
• Scalia called this interpretive principle the “presumption against ineffectiveness.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 63 (2012).
• The majority arrogates Congress’s policymaking role to itself by allowing bump-stock users to circumvent Congress’s ban on weapons that shoot rapidly via a single action of the shooter.
• ATF has classified such devices as “machinegun[s]” since 1982. See Record 1077. In 2003, the Fifth Circuit held that such a contraption qualified as a “machinegun” under the statute. See United States v. Camp, 343 F. 3d 743, 745. An owner of a semiautomatic rifle had placed a fishing reel inside the weapon’s trigger guard. Id., at 744. When he pulled a switch behind the original trigger, the switch supplied power to a motor connected to the fishing reel. Ibid. The motor caused the reel to rotate, and that rotation manipulated the curved lever, causing it to fire in rapid succession. Ibid.
• Every Member of the majority has previously emphasized that the best way to respect congressional intent is to adhere to the ordinary understanding of the terms Congress uses.
• [citations to opinions written by each judge in the majority]
• Today, the majority forgets that principle and substitutes its own view of what constitutes a “machinegun” for Congress’s.
• * * *
• Just like a person can shoot “automatically more than one shot” with an M16 through a “single function of the trigger” if he maintains continuous backward pressure on the trigger, he can do the same with a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle if he maintains forward pressure on the gun. §5845(b).

Full Recounting of Facts

• I A
• Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a “machinegun” is “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.”
• ... bump firing ... The shooter allows the recoil from one shot to push the whole firearm backward. As the rifle slides back and away from the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, the trigger is released and reset for the next shot. Simultaneously, the shooter uses his nontrigger hand to maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. The forward pressure counteracts the recoil and causes the firearm (and thus the trigger) to move forward and “bump” into the shooter’s trigger finger. This bump reengages the trigger and causes another shot to fire, and so on.
• ... there are accessories designed to make the technique easier. A “bump stock” is one such accessory.
• I B
• For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under the statute.
• ATF abruptly reversed course in response to a mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. In October 2017, a gunman fired on a crowd attending an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more.
• While the first wave of bills was pending, ATF began considering whether to reinterpret §5845(b)’s definition of “machinegun” to include bump stocks.
• The final Rule also repudiated ATF’s previous guidance that bump stocks did not qualify as “machineguns” under §5845(b).
• And, it ordered owners of bump stocks to destroy them or surrender them to ATF within 90 days.
• Bump-stock owners who failed to comply would be subject to criminal prosecution.
• I C
• Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to ATF under protest.
• He then filed suit to challenge the final Rule, asserting a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. As relevant, Cargill alleged that ATF lacked statutory authority to promulgate the final Rule because bump stocks are not “machinegun[s]” as defined in §5845(b).
• A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

• See Material Facts
• See Procedural History
• II
• Section 5845(b) defines a “machinegun” as any weapon capable of firing “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.”
• 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.”
• ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.
• II A
• "function" ... “the mode of action by which it fulfils its purpose.” is 4 Oxford English Dictionary 602 (1933); American Heritage Dictionary 533 (1969) (“The natural or proper ac- tion for which a ... mechanism ... is fitted or employed”).
• "trigger" ... such as a “movable catch or lever,” that “sets some force or mechanism in action. 11 Oxford English Dictionary, at 357; American Heritage Dictionary, at 1371 (“The lever pressed by the finger to discharge a firearm” or “[a]ny similar device used to release or activate a mechanism”); Webster’s New International Dictionary 2711 (2d ed. 1934) (“A piece, as a lever, connected with a catch or detent as a means of releasing it; specif., Firearms, the part of a lock moved by the finger to release the cock in firing”)
• No one disputes that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is not a machinegun because it fires only one shot per “function of the trigger.”
• The following series of illustrations depicts how the trigger assembly on an AR–15 style semiautomatic rifle works. [four pages of design information starting on page 8; total 19 pages]
• Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every “function of the trigger.” So, a bump stock cannot qualify as a machinegun under §5845(b)’s definition.
• A shooter using a bump stock, it asserts, must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots.
• According to ATF, all the shooter must do is keep his trigger finger stationary on the bump stock’s ledge and maintain constant forward pressure on the front grip to continue firing.
• ATF and the dissent seek to call the shooter’s initial trigger pull a “function of the trigger” while ignoring the subsequent “bumps” of the shooter’s finger against the trigger before every additional shot.
• But, §5845(b) does not define a machinegun based on what type of human input engages the trigger—whether it be a pull, bump, or something else. [emphasis added]
• The statutory definition instead hinges on how many shots discharge when the shooter engages the trigger. [emphasis added]
• Section 5845(b) asks only whether a weapon fires more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”
• Finally, the position that ATF and the dissent endorse is logically inconsistent.
• They reason that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger because a shooter “need only pull the trigger and maintain forward pressure” to “activate continuous fire.”
• If that is correct, however, then the same should be true for a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock.
• Yet, they agree that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock “fires only one shot each time the shooter pulls the trigger.”
• II B
• A bump stock is not a “machinegun” for another reason: 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.”
• ATF and the dissent counter that machineguns also require continuous manual input from a shooter: He must both engage the trigger and keep it pressed down to continue shooting. In their view, there is no meaningful difference between holding down the trigger of a traditional machinegun and maintaining forward pressure on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock.
• By contrast, pushing forward on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not part of functioning the trigger. After all, pushing on the front grip will not cause the weapon to fire unless the shooter also engages the trigger with his other hand.
• Thus, while a fully automatic rifle fires multiple rounds “automatically ... by a single function of the trigger,” a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock can achieve the same result only by a single function of the trigger and then some.
• II C
• ... the presumption against ineffectiveness. That presumption weighs against interpretations of a statute that would “rende[r] the law in a great measure nugatory, and enable offenders to elude its provisions in the most easy manner.” The Emily, 9 Wheat. 381, 389 (1824).
• So, ATF reasons, concluding that bump stocks are lawful “simply because the [trigger] moves back and forth ... would exalt artifice above reality and enable evasion of the federal machinegun ban.”
• Under our reading, §5845(b) still regulates all traditional machineguns. The fact that it does not capture other weapons capable of a high rate of fire plainly does not render the law useless.
• ... the dissent elsewhere acknowledges that a shooter can do the same with an unmodified semiautomatic rifle using the manual bump-firing technique. See post, at 5. The dissent thus fails to prove that our reading makes §5845(b) “far less effective,” much less ineffective (as is required to invoke the presumption).
• III
• For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
• The core of the rationale is available above