NEW ORLEANS - A regulation promulgated by the ATF to interpret the federal prohibition on machineguns as extending to bump stocks violates federal law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded on Friday.
The challenge was brought by plaintiff Michael Cargill and centers on bump stocks, a firearm attachment that allows a shooter to harness the natural recoil of a semi-automatic weapon to quickly re-engage the trigger after firing.
Since the National Firearms Act of 1934, federal law has heavily regulated machineguns. In 2018, the ATF reversed its position that bump stocks were not machineguns, subjecting anyone who possessed a bump stock to criminal liability.
The ATF’s Final Rule modified the definition of machinegun to include: “The term ‘machinegun’ includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”
According to the opinion, Cargill lawfully acquired two non-mechanical bump stocks but surrendered them to the ATF after passage of the Final Rule. He then sued ATF and other federal defendants, bringing several claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the ATF lacked authority to promulgate the Final Rule because its interpretation of machinegun conflicts with the unambiguous statutory definition.
After a one-day bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the government.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found that the definition of machinegun must turn on the action of the trigger.
“We reiterate that a shooter can bump fire an ordinary semi-automatic rifle even without a bump stock,” the opinion states. “But nobody, not even the Government, contends that semi-automatic rifles are machineguns. That concession damns the Government’s position.”
According to the opinion, the definition of machinegun as set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act establishes two conditions that must obtain in order for a weapon to qualify. The weapon must operate “automatically” and “by single function of the trigger.”
According to the statute’s unambiguous language, neither condition obtains as applied to a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock, the opinion states.
The Fifth Circuit found that the failure of either condition is sufficient to entitle Cargill to judgment.
“Many commentators argue that non-mechanical bump stocks contribute to firearm deaths and that the Final Rule is good public policy,” the opinion states. “We express no opinion on those arguments because it is not our job to determine our nation’s public policy.
“That solemn responsibility lies with the Congress, and our task is confined to deciding cases and controversies, which requires us to apply the law as Congress has written it.”
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 1:19-CV-349
Fifth Circuit case No. 20-51016