The Supreme Court recently showcased its consideration of a remarkable case revolving around gun rights. Proliferating from a case in November, this term’s argument involves a significant question that bypasses the Second Amendment, proceeding instead to interpret federal law. The primary issue at hand is the legal definition of a firearm equipped with a “bump stock,” an attachment that has the potential to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can discharge hundreds of rounds within minutes. We can observe a thorough exploration of this case on Amy Howe’s article on SCOTUSblog.
The story commences in 2017, when a severe mass shooting occurred in Las Vegas. The weapons used were semi-automatic rifles accessorized with bump-stock devices. As an aftermath of this tragic event, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) established a rule which deemed bump stocks as “machine guns” and hence universally illegal according to federal law. The rule instructed owners to either destroy any existing bump stocks or surrender them at an ATF office to escape criminal consequences.
A hitch in this narrative arises with the figure of Michael Cargill, a gun store owner from Austin. Following the publication of the new rule, Cargill surrendered all the bump stocks in his possession. However, upon completing that, he sought to invalidate the rule through legal means.
The ensuing ripples from this case sparked diverging viewpoints in other courts. Cargill’s case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, for instance, led to a judgment stating that bump stocks could not fit the “machine gun” label. If there was ambiguity about the definition, the court declared that it should be resolved in the defendant’s favor under the rule of lenity.
While both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit concurred with the lenity principle in their judgments, their interpretations of the rule were drastically different. The District of Columbia Circuit upheld the regulation, deeming the bump stock a “machine gun.”
As both the Biden administration and Cargill brought their grievances to the Supreme Court, their arguments revolved around their own interpretations of the “machinegun” definition in regards to the bump stock. One urged its inclusion within the definition, while the other emphasized its outside status. The term “single function of the trigger,” under the statutory definition of a “machinegun”, converted into a pivot for both parties. The forthcoming Supreme Court decision offers a valuable potential to shape the legal landscape surrounding gun control.