Is a “bump stock” a “machine gun”? That’s the question for the Supreme Court at oral argument Wednesday morning. How the justices answer could have vast implications for law enforcement, public safety and criminal punishment.
Though it’s a gun case at a court that has drastically expanded the Second Amendment, this latest appeal doesn’t ask them to interpret that amendment. Rather, it involves how federal law defines machine guns. Bump stocks are devices that attach to semi-automatic rifles, enabling rapid fire. After the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the Trump administration said the devices meet the machine gun definition.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The circuit court said that a “plain reading” of the statutory language, coupled with the mechanics of semi-automatic firearms, excludes bump stocks. The appeals court also said the question is at least ambiguous, leading it to apply something called the rule of “lenity,” which says that ambiguous laws should be resolved in favor of individuals rather than the government when it exposes them to criminal liability.
The Biden administration appealed to the justices, telling them that if the circuit ruling stands, “its consequences are likely to reverberate nationwide,” deeming the issue one that’s “exceptionally important for federal law enforcement and public safety.” Among those backing the government is a coalition of gun safety groups, who explain that bump stocks “turn semi-automatic rifles into machineguns. That is their sole purpose.” If the justices don’t reverse the 5th Circuit, the groups write, “it will make every American less safe.”
Among those backing the man at the center of the case, gun dealer Michael Cargill, are the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The latter group stresses to the justices that the rule of lenity “deserves strengthening and clarification as a bulwark of civil rights protections in our federal republic.”
So while Wednesday’s hearing may feature technical discussion about how exactly bump stocks work, all agree the ramifications are weighty.
Notably, slated to argue against the Trump-era bump stock ban is Jonathan Mitchell, who took the lectern for Donald Trump himself earlier this month in the ballot eligibility case that’s still awaiting decision. Earlier this term, the justices separately heard argument in a Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi, in which we’re awaiting a ruling as well.
At issue in multiple cases this term is the scope of federal agency power. In this case, the bump stock ban stems from an ATF regulation, rather than an act of Congress. This latest appeal, Garland v. Cargill, provides yet another significant matter affecting the country for the high court to resolve this term, which typically sees final decisions come by late June.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
