Supreme Court 6 - 3 Decision Rules Ban On Bump Stock Guns Unconstitutional

Today by the opinions of our Supreme Court, the ruling on Merrick Garland v. CarGill determines bump guns are not defined in federal code as machine guns. Therefore, bump guns are no longer banned.

This case traces it’s origins back to December 18, 2018, when Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), clarifying that bump stock rifles fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law, as such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

First we must explore what a machine gun by the legal definition and past law.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a “machinegun” 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 - Definitions

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.

b). With a machinegun, a shooter can fire multiple times, or even continuously, by engaging the trigger only once. This capability distinguishes a machinegun from a semiautomatic firearm. With a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter can fire only one time by engaging the trigger. Using a technique called bump firing, shooters can fire semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. A shooter who bump fires a rifle uses the firearm’s recoil to help rapidly manipulate the trigger. Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, a “bump stock” is an accessory designed to make the technique easier. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing, and the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.

The ATF issued its final Rule in 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 66514. The agency’s earlier regulations simply restated §5845(b)’s statutory definition. The final Rule amended those regulations by adding the following language:

The 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 semiautomatic 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.

This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between a shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and a shooter pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary finger. 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.

Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stock guns to the Arms, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) under protest after the ban was implemented. Mr. Cargill then filed suit to challenge the Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.

After a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for ATF. The Fifth Circuit initially affirmed, but reversed after rehearing en banc. A majority agreed that §5845(b) is ambiguous as to whether a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machinegun and resolved that ambiguity in Cargill’s favor. ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.

The ATF concedes the semiautomatic bump gun rifle cannot fire automatically.” The Model 37 allows the user to “slam fire”— that is, fire multiple shots by holding down the trigger while operating the shotgun’s pump action. Each pump ejects the spent cartridge and loads a new one into the chamber.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett , joined. Alito, filed a concurring opinion. Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, joined.

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). In any event, Congress could have linked the definition of “machinegun” to a weapon’s rate of fire, as the dissent would prefer. But, it instead enacted a statute that turns on whether a weapon can fire more than one shot “automatically . . . by a single function of the trigger.” §5845(b). And, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.” Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U. S. 79, 89 (2017).

Today was another brilliant opinion by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas upholding the 2nd Amendment and defying the arbitrary ATF interpretation of a machine gun rapid fire to include bump stock rifles definition into the regulation.

This case took over five years working it’s way up to the final ruling by our Supreme Court and also demonstrates the critical need that we elect constitutional leaders so that in the future new regulations passed through Congress, and signed by the President do not impinge on our 2nd amendment.

It’s Congress’ job to clarify definitively any federal regulation in clear and unambiguously terms; therefore, the ATF redefining a new term as to what a machinegun is unconstitutional.

If you find value in my independent research and commentary, please consider a paid subscription, I encourage you to share my newsletter with our like minded community.

God Bless the United States of America.