Court confirms agencies can’t change rules

IN Garland v. CargillThe United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority ruling, held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority when it issued a final regulation classifying bump stocks as machine guns.

Evaluation of this common sense opinion must begin with a review of the National Firearms Act, which defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon that fires, is designed to fire, or can be readily restored to fire, automatically with more than one shot, without manual reloading, by means of a single trigger function.” The definition also includes “any part designed and intended solely…for use in converting the weapon into a machine gun.”

Unlike a machine gun, which can fire multiple shots when the trigger is pulled once, a semi-automatic firearm can only fire one shot per trigger pull. There are shooting techniqueshowever, in order to increase the speed of firing shots from semi-automatic weapons.

One technique is bump firing. During bump firing, the shooter holds the trigger finger still while allowing the recoil energy from the shot to quickly push the weapon back and reset the trigger. At the same time, the shooter applies forward pressure on the weapon with the hand that is not pressing the trigger to “slam” the trigger against his or her stationary trigger finger, which causes the next shot to be fired. When done effectively, bump firing allows semi-automatic firearms to fire at rates approaching those of machine guns.

A bump stock is a device that facilitates the firing of a bump stock. Importantly, even with a bump stock, the Court noted that “as with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger must still be released and re-squeezed to fire each subsequent shot.” ​​Furthermore, firing a bump stock—with or without a bump stock—requires significant manual involvement by the shooter.

Given these facts, in ten separate rulings issued between 2008 and 2017, the ATF found that bump stock rifles are NO machine guns, for the simple reason that they cannot “automatically” fire multiple rounds “with a single trigger function.” However, in 2018, after the U.S. Congress refused to pass legislation following the mass shooting in Las Vegas, the ATF reversed course and issued a final rule classifying bump stocks as machine guns. The rule states that “the term ‘automatically’” in the NFA “means operation by a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that enables the firing of multiple rounds with a single trigger function; and ‘single trigger function’ means a single trigger pull and analogous movements.” The ATF further stated that “the term ‘machine gun’ includes a bump stock device.”

Michael Cargill, a gun rights activist and gun shop owner in Texas, challenged the rule, arguing that the ATF overstepped its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act because bump stocks are not “machine guns” under the statute. on the bench The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Cargill, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The court applied common sense to the question presented and ruled that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is NO machine gun.

First, the Court noted that a firearm equipped with a bump stock “does not fire more than one shot with a ‘single trigger function,’” because even with a bump stock, “the shooter must release and reset the trigger between each shot.” ​​Indeed, as the majority reasoned, “a bump stock merely shortens the time that elapses between trigger ‘functions.’”

Second, a bump stock-equipped rifle does not fire “automatically” because “the shooter must do more than simply squeeze the trigger once.” More specifically, the shooter must “actively maintain an appropriate amount of forward pressure on the rifle’s forward grip with the hand that is not pulling the trigger,” requiring the shooter to provide manual input.

The court also rejected the government’s unfounded argument that bump stocks should be classified as machine guns because otherwise the restrictions on machine guns would be ineffective because criminals could instead purchase bump stocks: “A law is not useless simply because it draws a narrower line than one of its possible statutory purposes might suggest,” the court explained.

It went on to say that it is “difficult to understand how the ATF can credibly argue otherwise, given that for nearly a decade and in numerous separate decisions it has consistently held that “bump stocks are not machine guns.”

In invalidating the ATF final rule, the Court reinforced the fundamental principle that executive branch agencies cannot make laws; they can only enforce them. As Justice Samuel Alito explained in a companion opinion, the statutory text of the NFA is clear, so any changes to the law must come from Congress.

In addition to invalidating the final rule restricting the use of bump stocks, Cargill This opinion will likely have other far-reaching implications as well.

Explaining that ATF cannot simply change the wording of statutory provisions it would like to make broader, Cargill undermines other ATF regulations. In recent years, ATF regulations have redefined unfinished frames or receivers as firearms, redefined what constitutes a short-barreled rifle, and redefined what constitutes “carrying on the business” of trafficking in firearms. All of these provisions, such as the rule reclassifying bump stocks as machine guns, not only amend but also contradict the clear language of the act of Congress. Cargill This decision therefore means that the ATF exceeded its authority by enacting these regulations as well.

In addition, both the majority and dissenting opinions in Cargill emphasized the distinction between machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. Some lower courts have upheld bans on certain semi-automatic firearms (many times deemed “assault weapons”), equating them with machine guns. CargillHowever, it challenges this logic by clearly pointing out that there are fundamental differences between these types of firearms.

So, while Cargill ensures that fundamental Second Amendment rights are not subject to the whims of unelected bureaucrats at ATF, the decision appears to provide legal ammunition to challenge abuses of regulatory authority by numerous other departments and agencies.