The dispute centers around what constitutes an automatic weapon.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Feb. 28 in the case of Garland v. Cargill, which concerns whether a bump stock transforms a semiautomatic firearm into the type of “machine gun” prohibited under federal law.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) said for years that nonmechanical bump stocks, or those without internal springs, didn’t constitute a machine gun since they didn’t produce automatic fire.
However, the ATF changed its position in 2018 after the mass shooting in Las Vegas when a gunman used devices equipped with bump stocks to kill 58 people.
Michael Cargill, host of the “Come and Talk It” radio show, sued the ATF over its 2018 interpretation, alleging that it violated a portion of the Administrative Procedures Act. Although he lost in two lower court decisions, the Fifth Circuit ultimately ruled in his favor in an en banc, or full court, decision.
In a 13–3 vote, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court decision, stating that “an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks.” Eight judges thought that the law unambiguously failed to cover nonmechanical bump stocks, while 12 opined that the rule of lenity required reversal.
The rule of lenity generally directs courts to rule against the government and for a defendant when the law is ambiguous.
Despite winning, Mr. Cargill is requesting that the Supreme Court accept the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) request for it to consider his case. Both parties note that other circuits have issued conflicting rulings on how to classify bump stocks.
Defining ‘Automatic’
The litigation is perhaps not surprising, as the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned that the ATF’s rulemaking would result in lawsuits.
“Here’s the bottom line,” she said in a 2017 statement. “The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump-fire stocks. Period. The agency made this crystal clear in 2010 and again in a 2013 letter to Congress, writing that ’stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.’”
By Sam Dorman
