June 14, 2024. Garland v. Cargill
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority:
"Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, a “machinegun†is “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.†§5845(b). The statutory definition also includes “any part designed and intended . . . for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.†Ibid. 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. The shooter must release and reengage the trigger to fire another shot. Machineguns can ordinarily achieve higher rates of fire than semiautomatic firearms because the shooter does not need to release and reengage the trigger between shots.
Shooters have devised techniques for firing semiautomatic firearms at rates approaching those of some machineguns. One technique is called bump firing. A shooter who bump fires a rifle uses the firearm’s recoil to help rapidly manipulate the trigger. The shooter allows the recoil from one shot to push the whole firearm backward. As the rifle slides back and away from the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, the trigger is released and reset for the next shot. Simultaneously, the shooter uses his nontrigger hand to maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip. The forward pressure counteracts the recoil and causes the firearm (and thus the trigger) to move forward and “bump†into the shooter’s trigger finger. This bump reengages the trigger and causes another shot to fire, and so on.
Bump firing is a balancing act. The shooter must maintain enough forward pressure to ensure that he will bump the trigger with sufficient force to engage it. But, if the shooter applies too much forward pressure, the rifle will not slide back far enough to allow the trigger to reset. The right balance produces a reciprocating motion that permits the shooter to repeatedly engage and release the trigger in rapid succession.
Although bump firing does not require any additional equipment, there are accessories designed to make the technique easier. A “bump stock†is one such accessory.1 It replaces a semiautomatic rifle’s stock (the back part of the rifle that rests against the shooter’s shoulder) with a plastic casing that allows every other part of the rifle to slide back and forth. This casing helps manage the back-and-forth motion required for bump firing. A bump stock also has a ledge to keep the shooter’s trigger finger stationary. A bump stock does not alter the basic mechanics of bump firing. As with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot".
"The question in this case is whether a bump stock transforms a semiautomatic rifle into a “machinegun,†as defined by §5845(b). For many years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) took the position that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were not machineguns under the statute. On more than 10 separate occasions over several administrations, ATF consistently concluded that rifles equipped with bump stocks cannot “automatically†fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.†See App. 16–68. In April 2017, for example, ATF explained that a rifle equipped with a bump stock does not “operat automatically†because “forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward handguard.†Id., at 66. And, because the shooter slides the rifle forward in the stock “to fire each shot, each succeeding shot fir with a single trigger function.†Id., at 67.
ATF abruptly reversed course in response to a mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. In October 2017, a gunman fired on a crowd attending an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 more. The gunman equipped his weapons with bump stocks, which allowed him to fire hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes.
This tragedy created tremendous political pressure to outlaw bump stocks nationwide. Within days, Members of Congress proposed bills to ban bump stocks and other devices “designed . . . to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.†S. 1916, 115th Cong., 1st Sess., §2 (2017); see also H. R. 3947, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017); H. R. 3999, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017). None of these bills became law. Similar proposals in the intervening years have also stalled. See, e.g., H. R. 396, 118th Cong., 1st Sess. (2023); S. 1909, 118th Cong., 1st Sess. (2023); H. R. 5427, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).
While the first wave of bills was pending, ATF began considering whether to reinterpret §5845(b)’s definition of “machinegun†to include bump stocks. It proposed a rule that would amend its regulations to “clarify†that bump stocks are machineguns. 83 Fed. Reg. 13442 (2018). ATF’s aboutface drew criticism from some observers, including those who agreed that bump stocks should be banned. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for example, warned that ATF lacked statutory authority to prohibit bump stocks, explaining that the proposed regulation “‘hinge on a dubious analysis’†and that the “‘gun lobby and manufacturers have a field day with reasoning’†in court. Statement on Regulation To Ban Bump Stocks (Mar. 23, 2018). She asserted that “‘legislation is the only way to ban bump stocks.’†Ibid.
ATF issued its final Rule in 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. 66514. The agency’s earlier regulations simply restated §5845(b)’s statutory definition. Ibid. The final Rule amended those regulations by adding the following language:
“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 selfregulating 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.†Id., at 66553–66554.
The final Rule also repudiated ATF’s previous guidance that bump stocks did not qualify as “machineguns†under §5845(b). Id., at 66530–66531. And, it ordered owners of bump stocks to destroy them or surrender them to ATF within 90 days. Id., at 66530. Bump-stock owners who failed to comply would be subject to criminal prosecution. Id., at 66525; see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o)(1)".
“A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.†With or without a bump stock, a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.†All that a bump stock does is accelerate the rate of fire by causing these distinct “function†of the trigger to occur in rapid succession”.
“A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does”.
“Moreover, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is indistinguishable from another weapon that ATF concedes cannot fire multiple shots “automaticallyâ€: the Ithaca Model 37 shotgun. The Model 37 allows the user to “slam fireâ€â€” 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. If the shooter is holding down the trigger, the new cartridge will fire as soon as it is loaded. According to ATF, the Model 37 fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, but it does not do so “automatically†because the shooter must manually operate the pump action with his nontrigger hand. See 83 Fed. Reg. 66534. That logic mandates the same result here. Maintaining the proper amount of forward pressure on the front grip of a bump-stock equipped rifle is no less additional input than is operating the pump action on the Model 37”.
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals”.
The most interesting part of this ruling is Justice Sotomayor writing for the dissent:
“On October 1, 2017, a shooter opened fire from a hotel room overlooking an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in what would become the deadliest mass shooting in U. S. history. Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles. These simple devices harness a rifle’s recoil energy to slide the rifle back and forth and repeatedly “bump†the shooter’s stationary trigger finger, creating rapid fire. All the shooter had to do was pull the trigger and press the gun forward. The bump stock did the rest”.
Is Justice Sotomayor acknowledging that semiautomatic rifles are in common use?
If so, semiautomatic rifles are not “dangerous and unusual”. (AR-15 rifles are semiautomatic and owned by at least 24 Million Americans)
If an arm is not “dangerous and unusual”, it can’t be banned.