On June 14, 2024, the U.S. Supreme released its decision in Garland v. Cargill.  Full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf  In in 6-3 decision, the Court decided that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a regulation that classified a bump stock as a machine gun.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, defines a “machine gun” as 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.”  26 U.S. Code § 5845(b).

Virtually any semi-automatic firearm can be fired extremely rapidly using a technique called “bump firing”.  The shooter uses a firearm’s recoil to assist rapidly manipulate the trigger.  A bump stock is installed on a semi-automatic rifle to make the technique easier.

In the past, the BATF consistently stated that semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machine guns under § 5845(b).  This changed after a killer used bump stock-equipped rifles to murder more than 50 people and wound hundreds in Las Vegas in 2017.  The following year, BATF issued a regulation, 83 Fed. Reg. 66514, that would have treated a bump stock as a machine gun:

[T]he term ‘automatically’ as it modifies ‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,’ means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and ‘single function of the trigger’ means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term ‘machinegun’ includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

Owners of bump stocks were required to either destroy them, turn them over to BATF, or face prosecution for possession of an illegal machine gun.

Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to BATF under protest.  He then filed suit to challenge the regulation, alleging that BATF lacked statutory authority because bump stocks were not “machine guns.”  In the trial in a U.S. District Court in Texas, the judge found for BATF.  Cargill appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  After initially upholding the District Court, the Court of Appeals then held that the regulation was ambiguous as to whether a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machine gun.

On BATF’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the majority held that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a machine gun.  As the basis of the decision, the rifle cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.”  Even if it could, it would not do so “automatically”.  Therefore, BATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a regulation that classifies bump stocks as machine guns.

The future of the bump stock remains in question.  There are bills in Congress that would make changes in the definition of a machine gun to include a bump stock.  Some states have made similar changes in their laws that continue to ban bump stocks.

James Wagner is a partner with Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP.  If you have a case or questions involving firearms laws, you may contact him through the firm.