Bump Stocks: Correcting Executive Overreach

Without Touching the Second Amendment, SCOTUS Limits Executive Authority in Rejecting the Bump Stock Ban

In Garland v. Cargill, the central question before SCOTUS was whether a bump stock converts a semiautomatic firearm into a "machinegun" under the statutory definition provided by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)¹. This decision is not about the merits or dangers of bump stocks themselves. Rather, it establishes a legal precedent: an executive agency, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), cannot unilaterally redefine statutory terms to expand its regulatory authority.

The ruling underscores the necessity for clear legislative action to enact significant policy changes, thereby preserving the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches and protecting citizens from arbitrary reinterpretations of the law.

Understanding "Single Function of the Trigger"

To understand the Court’s decision, it is necessary to examine the phrase "single function of the trigger." In the realm of firearms, this phrase refers to the mechanism by which the trigger activates the firing process. A machinegun, by statutory definition, fires multiple rounds automatically with a single trigger pull. Conversely, a semiautomatic firearm requires the shooter to release and reengage the trigger for each shot. A bump stock facilitates rapid firing by utilizing the firearm’s recoil to "bump" the trigger against the shooter’s stationary finger. However, each shot still necessitates a separate trigger action, distinguishing it from a machinegun.

Not a Second Amendment Issue

It is important to note that this case did not center on the Second Amendment. Instead, the focus was on statutory interpretation and administrative authority. The primary issue was whether the ATF possessed the authority to classify bump stocks as machineguns under existing law. The Second Amendment right to bear arms was not directly at issue, and whether bump stocks are protected by the Second Amendment will remain an open question.

As the decision to strike down the federal bump stock ban did not address the Second Amendment implications of such devices, state laws that ban bump stocks remain unaffected and in effect. States such as California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted their own prohibitions on bump stocks. These state-level bans continue to be enforceable.

The ATF's Reversal on Bump Stocks

For many years, the ATF issued opinion letters affirming that bump stocks did not qualify as machineguns under § 5845(b). This position changed dramatically following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting², where the shooter used bump stocks to devastating effect. In response to the tragedy, the Trump administration directed the ATF to reclassify bump stocks as machineguns. This abrupt policy shift created significant confusion, as items that were once legal and approved by the ATF suddenly became illegal, threatening owners with criminal prosecution without any new legislation being enacted.

This regulatory reversal "pulled the rug out" from under individuals who had legally purchased bump stocks based on prior ATF guidance. The ATF’s sudden reinterpretation not only disrupted settled expectations but also placed law-abiding citizens at risk of severe legal consequences, including imprisonment, for possession of items they had no reason to believe were illegal.

Legal Inconsistency Across Administrations

This case highlights a broader issue in administrative law: the inconsistency of legal interpretations across different administrations. A single act can be deemed illegal under one administration and permissible under another, leading to significant legal and practical confusion for citizens and businesses alike. The lack of continuity in regulatory interpretations undermines the rule of law, as individuals cannot reasonably rely on existing guidance if it can be so easily overturned³.

Trump’s Role and Executive Action

President Trump was responsible for pushing for the bump stock ban. Rather than pursuing legislative change, which would have required a potentially contentious vote in Congress, the Trump administration opted for executive action. This move shielded GOP lawmakers from what was certain to be a difficult vote, but bypassed the legislative process, the proper channel for enacting significant policy changes. By directing the ATF to reinterpret existing laws rather than advocating for new legislation, the administration circumvented the democratic process, and was an inappropriate use of executive power.

Despite the push for a bump stock ban, Congress failed to pass any of the multiple bills introduced following the Las Vegas shooting. This legislative inaction created a vacuum that the Trump administration sought to fill through regulatory reinterpretation by the ATF. The failure of Congress to act on proposed legislation meant that the regulatory change was made without the benefit of a full legislative debate and vote, which would have provided greater legitimacy and transparency.

Implications for Future Executive Overreach

The Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill has broader implications, particularly in light of initiatives like Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation³, which seeks to expand executive power. The ruling serves as a safeguard against executive overreach, emphasizing the limits of agency rulemaking authority. By reinforcing the necessity for clear legislative backing for significant policy changes, the decision protects against the dangers of unilateral executive actions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Project 2025 envisions a significant expansion of executive power, potentially allowing future administrations to enact sweeping changes through regulatory agencies without legislative approval.

The Cargill decision underscores the importance of maintaining checks and balances, ensuring that significant policy shifts undergo the appropriate legislative process. This protection against executive overreach is a essential for preserving the integrity of the legal system, providing consistent expectations to the public, and preventing arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.

1. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (2018) defines "machinegun" as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." This statutory definition has been central in debates over firearms regulation, particularly in relation to the classification and regulation of bump stocks. See, e.g., Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (discussing the ATF's rule classifying bump stocks as machineguns under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)).

2. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which occurred on October 1, 2017, is considered the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. The perpetrator, Stephen Paddock, fired over 1,000 rounds of ammunition from his suite in the Mandalay Bay Hotel into a crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival, resulting in 60 deaths and injuring more than 400 people. Paddock used multiple semi-automatic rifles equipped with bump stocks.

3. Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation is an ambitious initiative aimed at reshaping the executive branch to reflect conservative values and principles. A key component of this project involves restructuring federal agencies to reduce what it views as bureaucratic overreach and inefficiency. The plan includes proposals to decentralize power from Washington, D.C., streamline regulatory processes, and implement stricter oversight of executive agencies. Critics argue that these efforts could lead to significant reductions in regulatory protections and oversight, potentially undermining the balance of power and enabling executive overreach. For further details, see Heritage Foundation, Project 2025: Policy Agenda, https://www.heritage.org/project2025