Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Michael Cargill

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. The Court found that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger because the trigger must still reset between every shot. Because the device requires the shooter to maintain manual pressure to keep firing, it does not meet the legal definition of an automatic weapon.

This ruling makes it legal again for individuals to own bump stocks under federal law, reversing a ban that had been in place since 2018. It limits the power of federal agencies to change the meaning of old laws to address new public safety concerns. Gun owners who surrendered these devices may now see them return to the market in many states.

The case stems from a 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas where the shooter used bump stocks to fire rapidly into a crowd. While the ATF originally said these devices were legal, it changed its mind after the tragedy to treat them like machine guns. This decision emphasizes that only Congress, not a government agency, has the power to rewrite criminal laws to cover new technology.

Justice Thomas led a 6-member majority of the Court's conservative justices. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices, arguing the majority ignored the common-sense meaning of the law.

“A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a 'machinegun' because it cannot fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger.'”

“The majority adopts a narrow understanding of 'machinegun' that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text.”

The Supreme Court has legalized bump stocks by ruling they do not fit the technical legal definition of a machine gun.

The focus now shifts to Congress, as Justice Alito noted that lawmakers can pass a new law specifically banning bump stocks if they choose. In the meantime, lower courts will apply this ruling to any remaining cases involving the ATF's previous ban. Some states may also look to pass their own local bans to replace the fallen federal rule.

The case turned on whether a bump stock allows a gun to fire multiple times with one 'function' of the trigger. The Court ruled the trigger still moves for every shot, even if it happens very fast.

Owners of bump stocks can no longer be prosecuted under the federal machine gun ban for possessing these specific devices. This restores the legal status bump stocks held for a decade before the 2018 rule change.

The Court relied on a strict reading of the National Firearms Act of 1934. It focused on the technical requirement that a machine gun must fire 'automatically' and by a 'single function' of the trigger.

The case returns to lower courts to finalize the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Cargill. Observers will now watch for how federal agencies and parties affected by the ruling respond.

This ruling is part of a trend where the Court limits the ability of agencies to interpret laws in ways that create new crimes. It reinforces the idea that major policy changes must come from elected legislators.