Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision
Key claim: ATF is amending its regulations to remove bump stocks from the definition of ‘machine gun’ in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garland v. Cargill.
Abstract
(Rule · Justice Department, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill. The Supreme Court held that ATF exceeded its statutory authority in its December 2018 final rule titled “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” by classifying a bump stock as a “machine gun” because a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump-stock-type device is not a “machine gun” under the National Firearms Act. Accordingly, ATF is removing from the three regulatory definitions of “machine gun” the two sentences that incorporated bump stocks into those definitions.
Why this matters
The rule change formalizes the practical effect of Garland v. Cargill for individual gun owners: possession of bump stocks is no longer prohibited as unregistered machine gun possession under federal law, ending the enforcement posture ATF adopted in 2018. As a civil-rights-adjacent matter, it illustrates how Supreme Court statutory-interpretation rulings can compel agencies to withdraw regulations affecting criminal liability, and it leaves open contested policy questions about whether Congress should legislate directly on rate-of-fire devices.