February 27, 2024 โ Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case of Garland v. Cargill, which has the potential to shape how future Presidential administrations can implement gun control without Congressional approval. At issue in the case is whether bump stocks fall within the definition of a โmachinegunโ under federal law. More broadly, the question is how far ATF can go when redefining or implementing terms used in laws passed by Congress.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (โATFโ) had long taken the position that firearms equipped with bump stocks were not โmachineguns,โ and that sold alone, bump stocks were not regulated by the NFA or GCA. However, after the Las Vegas music festival shooting in 2018, the ATF reversed course and banned firearms with bump stocks. The ATF took the new stance that bump stocks illegally convert semi-automatic rifles into โmachineguns.โ The regulatory ban was a direct response to Congressโs failure to ban the device after the shooting in Las Vegas, and the resulting heightened nationwide debate on gun control.
The case challenges the authority of the ATF to enact what, according to arguments by attorneys for Mr. Cargill, essentially amounts to legislation by the executive branch of government. As you may recall from civics class, legislatures enact laws, courts interpret laws and the executive branch enforces the laws. This separation of powers is critical to the proper function of our government.
The issue here stems from the federal definition of โmachinegun,โ and whether bump stocks, which leverage a firearmโs recoil to achieve a higher rate of fire than would typically be possible with the human fingerโs actuation of the trigger, fit within this definition. Two federal appellate courts struck down the ATFโs regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits both found that the definition of a machinegun under federal law โ a firearm that shoots multiple bullets โautomaticallyโ and โby a single function of the trigger,โ or any accessory that allows a firearm to do so โ did not apply to bump stocks. When a bump stock is affixed to a rifle, the firearm still requires the actuation of the trigger for each shot. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, disagreed and upheld the regulation, holding that โunder the best interpretation of the statute, a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows the shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the triggerโ and is therefore a โmachinegun.โ This court seemed to rely on the movement of the shooterโs finger (or lack thereof), as opposed to the firing mechanism in the rifle. The Biden Administration subsequently brought the case to the Supreme Court, seeking review of the rulings by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. The opposite ruling of the D.C. Circuit is also facing challenge by the bump stock owner in that case.
This Supreme Court decision, which will interpret existing U.S. firearm regulations, is likely to set the tone for the future of U.S. gun control regulations when Congress is unwilling to pass new firearm restrictive laws. If the Supreme Court agrees that ATF went beyond its regulatory authority, future end-arounds the legislative process by the current or future Administrations should be curtailed. The outcome of this case has the potential to swing momentum in either direction, either signaling approval of broad ATF-enacted regulations pertaining to the sale and manufacture of firearms and related products, or the reinforcement of the rule of law that only Congress has the power to enact such laws.
Kel-Tec RDB17 Rifle .223 Rem/5.56mm 20rd magazine 17″ Barrel. Green
Kel-Tec RDB17 Rifle .223 Rem/5.56mm 20rd magazine 17" Barrel. Green