Supreme Court to Determine Whether Bump Stock Device is a “Machinegun”

In Garland, Attorney General v. Cargill, the Court considers whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun,” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The key statutory language defines a machinegun as a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.” The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has maintained that bump stocks are not machineguns under the statute and has issued many interpretation letters confirming that position. After a shooter used bump stocks in a shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, public support for a ban on bump stocks surged. Proposed federal legislation was drafted, but before Congress acted, the ATF, in response to the tragedy, reversed its position and reclassified bump stocks as machineguns in 2018. This exposed owners of bump stock devices to criminal liability.

Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks and sued challenging the ATF regulations. He argued that the ATF went beyond its authority in defining bump stocks as machineguns. The district court found for the ATF, and a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed. However, on rehearing en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed. The en banc court held that the definition of machinegun unambiguously did not applying to bump stocks, but even if it were ambiguous, the rule of lenity would compel a construction of the statute in Cargill’s favor. The U.S. Department of Justice and the ATF petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

In merits briefing, the government argued that the ATF’s interpretation was correct because a bump stock essentially allows a semiautomatic rifle to fire hundreds of rounds “by a single function of the trigger,” without additional manual movements. According to the government, the ATF’s view avoids the precise danger Congress was concerned about: multiple shots with one activation of the trigger. Despite the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that forward pressure is needed to continue firing a rifle with a bump stock, the government argued that this is analogous to the rearward pressure required to operate a conventional machine gun, and therefore there is no meaningful difference. Finally, the government argued that the Fifth Circuit’s decision allows evasion of the machinegun ban, and its application of the rule of lenity was improper because no grievous ambiguity exists.

Cargill argues that a bump stock still requires a shooter to reactivate the trigger between each shot, and therefore there is not more than one shot per “function” of the trigger. Cargill further argues that even if a bump stock allows for more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it is not automatic because the shooter still has to use his non-trigger hand to thrust the barrel or front grip forward while also utilizing his trigger hand to apply rearward pressure. These are manual functions, and the government has not identified an “automating apparatus” in a bump stock, so bump stocks do not transform a weapon into a machinegun.

At oral argument, the main focus for most of the Justices was to tease out what is “one function” and whether a bump stock truly allows multiple shots per one function of the shooter. Justices Gorsuch and Jackson seemed interested in drilling down on what Congress intended “function” to mean under the statute and on whether function is limited to what the firearm itself is doing or whether function includes the shooter pulling the trigger. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh seemed concerned that the ATF changed its mind on whether rifles with bump stocks were considered machineguns. On the other hand, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson seemed concerned with reading the statute too narrowly and permitting evasion of the law.

The case was argued on February 28, 2024. A decision is expected later in the term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s client alert discussing the Court’s opinion.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, McKenna Crisp, Monika Harris, or Puja Valera.