Garland v. Cargill (on Bump Stocks) Explained

Why did the Supreme Court reverse the federal ban on bump stocks? Professor Joseph Blocher of Duke Law School provides an in-depth legal analysis.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Garland v. Cargill overturned the ATF's ban on bump stocks, a device that enables semi-automatic firearms to fire at rates similar to automatic weapons by using the recoil energy to reset the trigger. Professor Blocher highlights that the controversy stems from the interpretation of federal law defining machineguns. The law states that machineguns are weapons that fire multiple rounds with “a single function of the trigger.” The ATF argued that bump stocks effectively create a single trigger function, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court's decision, authored by Justice Thomas, emphasized the technical mechanism of the trigger resetting with each shot, thus not fitting the statutory definition of a machine gun.

The discussion also delves into the implications of this decision for future gun regulations. Professor Blocher notes that the ruling does not preclude Congress from enacting new legislation to ban bump stocks explicitly. However, the decision underscores the limitations of executive agencies in interpreting existing laws beyond their clear text. Professor Blocher also touches on related legal questions, such as the regulation of gun parts kits and the broader implications for firearms law. 

Joseph Blocher is a Professor of Law at Duke Law School and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.