Garland v. Cargill

Last updated
Garland v. Cargill
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 28, 2024
Full case nameMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill
Docket no. 22-976
Case history
Prior
  • Cargill v. Garland,57F.4th447(5th Cir.2023)(en banc).
  • Cargill v. Garland,20F.4th1004(5th Cir.2021).
  • Cargill v. Barr,502F.Supp.3d1163(W.D. Tex.2020).
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."
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

Garland v. Cargill, (Docket No. 22-976), is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding bump stocks. [1] The court will decide whether bump stocks are "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. [2]

Contents

Background

A bump stock is a gun stock designed to facilitate the process of bump firing. Bump firing is the practice of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to mimic fully automatic fire. Following the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting, where the shooter was found to have made use of bump stocks, the legality of these attachments has been challenged at the state and federal level. In 2018, following the Las Vegas Shooting and the Parkland High School shooting, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) published an opinion stating that bump stocks were "machine guns" and thus banned by federal law.

Respondent Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works [3] purchased two bump stocks in April 2018, a few months before the ATF published its new rule. On March 25, 2019, Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF. The same day, he filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging the rule. Following a bench trial, the judge ruled in favor of the government. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Following additional briefing and argument, the en banc court reversed and remanded. On remand, the District Court entered judgment for Cargill. [4]

Supreme Court

On April 6, 2023, the Attorney General petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition on November 3. Oral arguments were heard on February 28, 2024. [5]

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

<i>United States v. Stewart</i> (2003) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 and 451 F.3d 1071, is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the defendant, ruling that possession of homemade machine guns can be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause.

<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 ammunition cartridges in rapid succession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

<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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2008 term, which began on October 6, 2008 and concluded October 4, 2009.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> 2011 decisions of the US supreme court

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 464 (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Petition for review</span>

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 63</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".

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

A privately made firearm is a legal term for a firearm produced by a private individual as opposed to 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.

Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to habeas corpus.

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.

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. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-agrees-hear-challenges-bump-stock-ban-new-yorks-financial-blacklisting-nra
  4. "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). April 6, 2023. Retrieved November 4, 2023.
  5. Fritze, John; Cole, Devan (28 February 2024). "Takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments over bump stocks and machine guns". CNN . Retrieved 9 April 2024.