Garland v. Cargill
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in classifying bump stocks as machine guns.** A bump stock does not make a rifle fire more than one round per trigger pull, so it falls outside the National Firearms Act's definition. Congress could ban bump stocks legislatively, but the ATF cannot accomplish the same result through regulatory reinterpretation.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the ATF classified bump stocks as machine guns under the 1986 National Firearms Act, banning a device allowing semi-automatic rifles to fire at near-automatic rates. Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks under protest and sued. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its authority: a bump stock doesn't make a rifle fire more than one round per trigger pull, so the law's definition of machine gun doesn't cover it. Congress could ban bump stocks, but the ATF couldn't do it by reinterpreting the statutory text.
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in classifying bump stocks as machine guns.** A bump stock does not make a rifle fire more than one round per trigger pull, so it falls outside the National Firearms Act's definition. Congress could ban bump stocks legislatively, but the ATF cannot accomplish the same result through regulatory reinterpretation.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support