Plain-English summary
Affirms that federal law does not treat bump stocks as machineguns
In Garland v. Cargill (No. 22-976), the Court held that the ATF exceeded its authority when it classified bump stocks as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act. The decision affirms the lower court and limits the agency's ability to broaden statutory definitions by regulation.
Why this matters
The ruling limits federal agencies’ power to redefine criminal statutes by regulation and affects how gun-control rules can be written and enforced. It also means owners of bump stocks face different federal legal exposure than the ATF had claimed, influencing past and future prosecutions and potential civil liability or regulation.
Who may feel it
- Owners and sellers of bump stocks and similar accessories
- Federal law enforcement and the ATF
- Gun-rights and gun-safety advocacy groups
- Congress — for potential legislative response
- State and local governments that regulate firearms
Key questions
- Does the statutory definition of “machinegun” cover bump stocks that enable rapid fire through the shooter’s repeated finger or hand movement?
- May an administrative agency lawfully expand a criminal statute’s definition by regulation when the statute’s text focuses on automatic fire produced without repeated user action?