In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has struck down the Trump administration’s bump stock ban, emphasizing the importance of statutory interpretation and the separation of powers. The decision, delivered by a 6-3 majority, rejected the federal government’s argument that rifles equipped with bump stocks are equivalent to machine guns, which are banned under federal law.
Though widely perceived as a Second Amendment issue, Cargill v. Garland is fundamentally about statutory interpretation. The case revolves around the ATF’s authority to classify bump stocks as machine guns. The Court’s decision highlights a triumph of textualism—where the plain words of a statute are paramount—over a purpose-driven interpretation that considers legislative intent.
A bump stock is an accessory that enables a semiautomatic rifle to fire at a higher rate. Normally, a semiautomatic rifle requires the shooter to pull the trigger for each shot, with the trigger resetting between shots. Bump stocks, however, use the firearm’s recoil to “bump” the trigger into the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing for a rapid succession of shots.
Under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, a machine gun is defined as a weapon that fires more than one shot “automatically” by a single trigger function. Historically, the ATF did not classify bump stocks as machine guns. However, following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, where bump stocks were used, the ATF reversed its stance in 2018, prompting legal challenges.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, held that bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun. According to the ruling, the term “single function of the trigger” refers to the mechanical operation of the trigger, not the actions of the shooter. Since bump stocks require the shooter to engage the trigger repeatedly, they do not qualify as machine guns under federal law.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged that Congress likely did not foresee a distinction between machine guns and bump stock-equipped rifles. However, he emphasized the necessity of adhering to the clear statutory text. Alito suggested that Congress could amend the law to address this issue directly.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. She argued that the majority’s interpretation undermines the legislative intent to restrict rapid-fire weapons. Sotomayor contended that the practical effect of bump stocks—to enable rapid fire—should qualify them as machine guns.
The ruling underscores a victory for congressional lawmaking authority, reinforcing that administrative agencies like the ATF cannot rewrite statutes through regulatory actions. This decision may signal a broader trend of checking the ATF’s regulatory reach, with implications for other contested rules, including those concerning “frame or receiver” definitions and the “engaged in the business” standard.
While the Court’s decision restricts the ATF’s authority to ban bump stocks, it does not preclude Congress from amending the law to address this issue explicitly. As the judicial landscape continues to evolve, upcoming cases, such as Garland v. VanDerStok, will further clarify the boundaries of the ATF’s regulatory power.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cargill v. Garland reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory text and maintaining the separation of powers. It serves as a reminder that significant regulatory changes must come from Congress, not through administrative reinterpretation.
If you have questions about how this ruling might affect you or need legal assistance, don’t hesitate to contact The Medlin Law Firm. Our experienced attorneys are here to provide the guidance and support you need. Call us today to schedule a consultation.
Similar Posts by The Author:
Publicaciones Similares del Autor:
(682) 204-4066 We cannot receive pictures via text so please send those via email or hand deliver to our office.
