Garland v. Cargill

Last updated

Garland v. Cargill
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 28, 2024
Decided June 14, 2024
Full case nameMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill
Docket no. 22-976
Citations602 U.S. 406 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
Prior
  • Case dismissed, Cargill v. Barr, 502 F.Supp.3d 1163 (W.D. Tex. 2020).
  • Affirmed, Cargill v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1004 (5th Cir. 2021).
  • Reversed, Cargill v. Garland, 57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc).
Questions presented
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger."
Holding
The ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" under §5845(b).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceAlito
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Laws applied

Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the classification of bump stocks as "machine guns" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2018. [1] [2] In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns for purposes of the NFA, vacating the ATF rule and finding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority. [3]

Contents

Background

Machine guns are regulated through a federal law in the United States known as the National Firearms Act of 1934. [4] Since enactment, this law requires the payment of a $200 excise tax, accompanied with vetting by the ATF, before a person can legally make, possess, or transfer a machine gun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun, silencer, destructive device, or any other weapon (AOW). Transport of such items across state lines or international borders also requires prior approval by ATF. [5] Subsection (b) in section 1 of the Act, as codified under section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code, provides this law's definition for a machine gun:

The term "machine gun" 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.

— Sec. 1 of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (26 U.S.C.   § 5845(b))

A bump stock is a firearms accessory designed to facilitate the process of bump firing. Bump firing is the practice of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to increase its rate of fire. In the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, a gunman using semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks fired hundreds of rounds into a crowd, killing 61 including himself and wounding over 500. [6] In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, ten states had banned bump stocks, and while there was legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress, the bills did not pass due to partisan politics. [7] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) also had not taken action, having treated bump stocks outside the definition of "machine guns" in the NFA. [8] Following the Parkland high school shooting in February 2018, President Donald Trump spoke out against bump stocks, and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) also threw its weight behind banning bump stocks. [7] The ATF began public comment for a new run in March 2018 which received over 36,000 comments. Most supported the ban, but other comments cautioned that the ATF's rule seemed like a runaround the Congressional definition and could lead to criminalization of semi-automatic firearms. [7] Following the public commenting period, the ATF proceeded to publish a new rule in December 2018 to repudiate its previous stance and "clarify" that bump stocks were machine guns as defined under the National Firearms Act. [8] [9]

Ever since the 2018 ATF final rule, the legality of the final rule has been challenged at the state and federal level, raising the question if bump stock could be classified as machine guns under the NFA. In one case, the Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to the final rule brought by firearm owners and firearm rights organizations, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing "Whether bump stocks can be fairly reclassified and effectively outlawed as machineguns under existing statutory definitions, I do not know and could not say without briefing and argument. Nor do I question that Congress might seek to enact new legislation directly regulating the use and possession of bump stocks." [10] The Court also denied other cases that challenged the final rule. [11]

The plaintiff in the case was Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, who in 2018 purchased two bump stocks a few months before the ATF published its new rule. On March 25, 2019, Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF under protest, and filed suit later the same day in the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas challenging the rule. [12] Following a bench trial, district judge David Alan Ezra ruled in favor of the government, ruling that the act of pulling the trigger on a bump stock-modified firearm "is automatic fire". [13] A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment in December 2021, with circuit judge Stephen A. Higginson, writing for the unanimous majority that "ATF's interpretation of the statute is the best interpretation. The phrase 'single function of the trigger,' as used in the National Firearms Act, means 'a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions'". [13] Following additional briefing and argument, the en banc court reversed and remanded in January 2023 in a 13–3 decision. The majority, written by circuit judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, wrote that it was up to Congress to amend the law to classify bump stocks as machine guns, and that the ATF final rule did not provide "fair warning that possession of a non-mechanical bump stock is a crime." [14] The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit also decided against the ATF's final rule in April 2023. [15]

Supreme Court

On April 6, 2023, U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari in Cargill's case. [16] The court granted the petition on November 3. Oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2024. [17] Cargill was represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. [18]

On June 14, 2024, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of Cargill, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority in ruling bump stocks as machine guns. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that under the National Firearms Act, bump stock attachments did not qualify as machine guns since, even if they did fire more than one round per trigger pull, they did not do so automatically, and thus could not be regulated by the ATF through administrative action, and that only congressional legislation could empower the agency with such authority. [3] [19] Justice Thomas was joined by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Thomas's opinion identified that the National Firearms Act "defines 'function of the trigger' to include not only 'a single pull of the trigger' but also any 'analogous motions' ... ATF concedes that one such analogous motion that qualifies as a single function of the trigger is 'sliding the rifle forward' to bump the trigger", and such "every bump is a separate 'function of the trigger[...] semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks are therefore not machineguns." [19] Thomas also explained that if the ATF took their definition of machine gun used in the bump stock rule to its ultimate conclusion, then it would have also classified semiautomatic rifles without bump stocks as machine guns since "bump" firing can be achieved without the need for the bump stock. [19] Finally, Thomas also stated that §5845(b) "specifies the precise action that must 'automatically' cause a weapon to fire 'more than one shot'—a 'single function of the trigger'"; as "a shooter must also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle's front grip with his nontrigger hand" when using a bump stock, this qualified as an additional function and thus did not meet the requirements for the definition of a machine gun. [19] Thomas also identified that prior to the Las Vegas shooting, the ATF across multiple administrations had previously declined to declare bump stocks as machine guns, but "abruptly reversed course" in its wake. [19]

Concurrence

Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion expressing the need to take the statutory meaning of the law into account. Alito wrote the following: "There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted [the National Firearms Act] would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we must follow it." [19] Alito stated the proper course of action to outlaw bump stocks would be for Congress to amend the National Firearms Act to include bump stocks within its scope, rather than trying to have the ATF effectuate the same result through administrative fiat. [20]

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, which is not a common procedure and is designed to capture attention and add "gravitas to the opinion." [21] [22] Sotomayor argued that Congress wanted to restrict the availability of machine guns "because [machine guns] eliminated the need for a person rapidly to pull the trigger himself to fire continuously". [23] Hence, Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion would render the National Firearms Act less effective: "[The majority opinion] casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." [24]

Reactions

Reporting in news outlets such as Reason and National Review praised the majority opinion for keeping its focus on the definition in question, while other outlets such as Slate and MSNBC criticized the majority opinion as being "tone deaf", especially in light of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting which prompted the now since-vacated ATF final rule. [19] [25] [26] [27] Vox Media reported the outcome as being a "party-line vote" between Justices appointed to the Supreme Court during a Democratic Party presidency and those appointed during a Republican Party presidency. [28] Cargill welcomed the decision, stating "I stood and fought, and because of this, the bump stock case is going to be the case that saves everything." [29] Some survivors of the Las Vegas shooting were taken aback by the outcome in the decision. [29]

President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have urged immediate Congressional action for amending the National Firearms Act to outlaw bump stocks, with Biden stating, "send me a bill and I will sign it immediately." [30] [31] [32] Although it was under his administration that the ATF final rule on bump stocks first came into effect, former-President Donald Trump stated through a campaign spokesperson that "the [Supreme] Court has spoken and their decision should be respected". [33] After the ruling, a bill [lower-alpha 1] with bipartisan support was introduced before the Senate to outlaw semi-automatic firearms equipped with devices (including bump stocks) that increase their rate of fire. Its passage by unanimous consent has been currently blocked by Senator Pete Ricketts, who said, "It's not really about bump stocks, this bill is about banning as many firearm accessories as possible. It’s an unconstitutional attack on law-abiding gun owners." [34] [35] [36]

Notes

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Firearms Act</span> 1934 US law regulating firearms including machine guns

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 was enacted on June 26, 1934, and currently codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53. The law is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes an excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") as Title I.

A hell-fire trigger is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The hell-fire clamps to the trigger guard behind the trigger and presses a "finger" against the back of the trigger to increase the force that returns the trigger to its forward position, effectively decreasing the time required for the trigger to reset, allowing for a faster follow up shot.

Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. State laws vary considerably, and are independent of existing federal firearms laws, although they are sometimes broader or more limited in scope than the federal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bump stock</span> Gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing, the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire cartridges in rapid succession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Short-barreled rifle</span> Weapon

Short-barreled rifle broadly refers to any rifle with an unusually short barrel. The term carbine describes a production rifle with a reduced barrel length for easier handling in confined spaces. Concern about concealment for illegal purposes has encouraged regulations specifying minimum barrel lengths and overall lengths.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Title II weapons</span> Class of weapons under the National Firearms Act

Title II weapons, or NFA firearms, are designations of certain weapons under the United States National Firearms Act (NFA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in California</span>

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed O'Connor</span> American judge (born 1965)

Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.

The Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA) is a California law that bans the ownership and transfer of over 50 specific brands and models of firearms, which were classified as assault weapons. Most were rifles, but some were pistols and shotguns. The law was amended in 1999 to classify assault weapons by features of the firearm. Firearms that were legally owned at the time the law was passed were grandfathered if they were registered with the California Department of Justice. The law was overturned in June 2021 in Miller v. Bonta; the ruling is stayed pending appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault weapons legislation in the United States</span>

Assault weapons legislation in the United States refers to bills and laws that define and restrict or make illegal the manufacture, transfer, and possession of assault weapons. How these firearms are defined and regulated varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; generally, this constitutes a list of specific firearms and combinations of features on semiautomatic firearms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017 Las Vegas shooting</span> Deadliest mass shooting in the US

On October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada from his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel. He fired more than 1,000 rounds, killing 60 people and wounding at least 413. The ensuing panic brought the total number of injured to approximately 867. About an hour later, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. The motive for the shooting is officially undetermined.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privately made firearm</span> Firearm made by a private individual

A privately made firearm is a firearm produced by a private individual, as contrasted with one produced by a corporate or government entity. The term "ghost gun" is used mostly in the United States by gun control advocates, but it is being adopted by gun rights advocates and the firearm industry because of recent regulations adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glock switch</span> Auto sear installable on a Glock

A Glock switch or Glock auto-sear is a small device that can be attached to the rear of the slide of a Glock handgun, converting the semi-automatic pistol into a selective fire machine pistol capable of fully automatic fire. As a type of auto sear, it functions by applying force to the trigger bar to prevent it from limiting fire to one round of ammunition per trigger pull. This device by itself, regardless if it is installed on a slide or not, is considered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to be a machine gun, making possession of the device illegal in the United States under most circumstances.

A binary trigger is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The binary trigger works by firing one shot upon pulling the trigger and then firing a subsequent shot upon release of the trigger.

A trigger crank is a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to fire at an increased rate. The trigger crank typically consists of a screw-tight clamp and crank assembly. The crank assembly is clamped onto the trigger guard of a semi-automatic firearm. The device is positioned in front of the trigger. When the crank is turned, tiny gears depress the trigger and cause the weapon to fire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forced reset trigger</span> Gun modification for faster firing

A forced reset trigger is a device that allows a person to fire a semi-automatic firearm at an increased rate. The forced reset trigger works by mechanically resetting the trigger's position after a shot is fired. This allows for an increased rate of fire. However, the shooter must still manually pull the trigger each time it resets for any subsequent shot to be fired.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firearms Policy Coalition</span> US gun rights organization

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a gun rights organization in the United States, which aims to advance gun rights in the United States via legal action, in keeping with its stated goal to "restore the essential right to keep and bear arms in the United States." The FPC seeks to approach gun rights advocacy in a more targeted and effective way than the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), specifically by working with targeted legal teams to advance legislation in support of gun rights causes.

References

  1. ↑ Liptak, Adam (November 11, 2023). "A Rare Trump Gun Control Measure Faces a Supreme Court Test". New York Times .
  2. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (November 3, 2023). "Supreme Court agrees to hear case over ban on bump stocks for firearms". CBS News . Retrieved November 4, 2023.
  3. 1 2 Lambert, Lisa (June 14, 2024). "US Supreme Court lifts ban on gun bump stocks". BBC News . Retrieved June 14, 2024.
  4. ↑ "Timeline of pivotal moments in US gun control history". AP News. March 15, 2018. Archived from the original on June 15, 2024. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  5. ↑ National Firearms Act as explained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  6. ↑ Chavez, Nicole (October 5, 2017). "What are the 'bump stocks' on the Las Vegas shooter's guns?". CNN. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved August 25, 2018.
  7. 1 2 3 Kaste, Martin (September 26, 2018). "The Politics Of Bump Stocks, 1 Year After Las Vegas Shooting". NPR . Archived from the original on September 26, 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2024.
  8. 1 2 Balsamo, Michael (December 18, 2018). "Trump administration moves to ban bump stocks". Associated Press.
  9. ↑ "Bump-Stock-Type Devices". March 29, 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 13442. Archived from the original on November 24, 2020.
  10. ↑ Bernfeld, Jeremy (March 2, 2020). "U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Bump Stock Ban In Place". WAMU .
  11. ↑ Dwyer, Devin (October 3, 2022). "Supreme Court upholds bump stock ban in big win for gun safety advocates". ABC.
  12. ↑ Hall, Katie (March 25, 2019). "Activist sues ATF over bump stock ban". Austin American-Statesman .
  13. 1 2 De La Garza, Erik (December 15, 2021). "Fifth Circuit upholds federal ban on bump stocks". Courthouse News Service.
  14. ↑ Stempel, Jonathan (January 7, 2023). "U.S. appeals court strikes down ban on bump stocks". Reuters .
  15. ↑ Pierson, Brendan (April 25, 2023). "Another appeals court rules against US ban on gun 'bump stocks'". Reuters .
  16. ↑ Chung, Andrew (April 7, 2023). "Biden appeals ruling against ban on gun bump stocks". Reuters. Retrieved June 14, 2024.
  17. ↑ Fritze, John; Cole, Devan (February 28, 2024). "Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over bump stocks and machine guns". CNN . Retrieved April 9, 2024.
  18. ↑ New Civil Liberties Alliance (June 14, 2024). "In NCLA's Bump-Stock Ban Case, U.S. Supreme Court Rules ATF Cannot Alter a Statute's Meaning". KXAN-TV (Press release). Globe Newswire. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sullum, Jacob (June 14, 2024). "Supreme Court upholds the rule of law by rejecting the Trump administration's bump stock ban". Reason.com. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  20. ↑ Lee, Ella (June 14, 2024). "Alito: Congress can amend law to ban bump stocks after Supreme Court nixes ban". The Hill. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  21. ↑ "SCOTUS for law students: Dissenting from the bench". SCOTUSblog. July 2, 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
  22. ↑ Biskupic, Joan (June 30, 2021). "Dissents from the bench: A Supreme Court tradition missing during Covid". CNN. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
  23. ↑ "Supreme Court strikes down bump stock ban". SCOTUSblog. June 14, 2024. Retrieved June 18, 2024.
  24. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie (June 14, 2024). "Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Era Ban on Gun Bump Stocks". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 18, 2024.
  25. ↑ "The Supreme Court Got the Bump-Stock Case Right". National Review. June 14, 2024. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  26. ↑ Stern, Mark Joseph (June 14, 2024). "Clarence Thomas' Opinion Legalizing Bump Stocks Is Indefensible". Slate. ISSN   1091-2339 . Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  27. ↑ Rubin, Jordan (June 14, 2024). "Supreme Court unleashes 'deadly consequences' in latest gun ruling". Deadline: Legal Blog. MSNBC. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  28. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (June 14, 2024). "The Supreme Court just effectively legalized machine guns". Vox. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  29. 1 2 Epstein, Kayla. "Las Vegas shooting survivors stunned by Supreme Court gun ruling". BBC.
  30. ↑ Chung, Andrew; Kruzel, John (June 14, 2024). "US Supreme Court rejects federal ban on gun 'bump stocks'". Reuters.
  31. ↑ "Statement from President Joe Biden on the Supreme Court Decision Garland v. Cargill". The White House (Press release). June 14, 2024. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  32. ↑ Bolton, Alexander (June 14, 2024). "Schumer calls for bill to ban bump stocks after Supreme Court ruling". The Hill. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  33. ↑ Boboltz, Sara (June 14, 2024). "Donald Trump Is Fine With Legal Bump Stocks, Actually". HuffPost. Retrieved June 15, 2024.
  34. ↑ Foran, Clare; Rimmer, Morgan; Barrett, Ted (June 18, 2024). "Senate GOP blocks effort by Democrats to pass bump stock ban after Supreme Court ruling". CNN . Retrieved June 19, 2024.
  35. ↑ Hulse, Carl (June 19, 2024). "It's Unanimous: In the Senate, Neither Party Consents to the Other's Ideas". The New York Times .
  36. ↑ Jalonick, Mary Clare (June 18, 2024). "Republicans block bill to outlaw bump stocks for rifles after Supreme Court lifts Trump-era ban". Associated Press.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.