Garland v. Cargill | |
---|---|
Argued February 28, 2024 Decided June 14, 2024 | |
Full case name | Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Michael Cargill |
Docket no. | 22-976 |
Citations | 602 U.S. ___ (more) |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Questions presented | |
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger." | |
Holding | |
The ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" under §5845(b). | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Alito |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson |
Laws applied | |
Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding bump stocks, attachments for semi-automatic guns which allow the shooter to fire multiple rounds with a single depression of the trigger, using the gun's recoil to re-engage the trigger after each round.[1][2] In the aftermath of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting where the shooter utilitized bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) moved to classify bump stocks as "machineguns" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), effectively banning their ownership and sale. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ATF exceeded their authority and that bump stocks were not considered machineguns under the NFA language, instead stating it was Congress's responsibility to make such a determination. [3]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search