20 F.4th 1004
5th Cir.2021Background
- In 2017 a mass shooting in Las Vegas using semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks prompted ATF to promulgate the "Bump Stock Rule" (Dec. 2018) classifying bump-stock-type devices as "machineguns" under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the federal machine-gun ban.
- The NFA definition at issue covers any weapon that "shoots...automatically more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger," and includes parts "designed and intended" to convert weapons into machineguns.
- ATF defined "single function of the trigger" as "a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions" and "automatically" as resulting from a "self-acting or self-regulating mechanism." The Rule took effect March 26, 2019.
- Plaintiff Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks, sued under the APA and the Constitution seeking return and injunction, and lost after a bench trial; the district court upheld the Rule.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding ATF’s interpretation of "single function of the trigger" and "automatically" is the best reading of the NFA, the rule of lenity does not apply, and the court need not reach ATF-authority or separation-of-powers arguments because Cargill lacks standing to obtain different relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bump stocks cause a weapon to fire "more than one shot...by a single function of the trigger" | Cargill: the trigger must mechanically reset for each shot, so each shot requires a separate function of the trigger | ATF: "single function" means a single pull (or analogous motion) initiating a firing sequence that produces multiple shots | Held: "single function of the trigger" means a single pull/analogous motion; bump stocks satisfy that test |
| Whether bump-stock firing is "automatically" (i.e., fires via a self-acting mechanism) | Cargill: additional manual input (forward pressure on the forearm) means firing is not automatic | ATF: "automatically" means produced by a self-acting/self-regulating mechanism; recoil-driven continued firing qualifies even if shooter maintains pressure | Held: firing occurs as the result of a self-acting mechanism and thus is "automatic" under the statute |
| Applicability of the rule of lenity | Cargill: any ambiguity in criminal statute must be resolved in his favor | ATF: traditional tools of interpretive can resolve the meaning; no grievous ambiguity remains | Held: no grievous ambiguity; lenity does not apply |
| Whether ATF exceeded statutory authority or violated separation of powers | Cargill: ATF lacked authority and the Rule offends separation-of-powers principles | ATF: had delegated authority; agency action lawful | Held: court did not decide because plaintiff lacks standing to obtain a remedy even if these claims were vindicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (uses "pull" when paraphrasing NFA machinegun definition)
- United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2003) (rejects mechanistic reading; one initiating action can make a weapon a machinegun)
- United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2009) (interprets "automatically" as resulting from a self-acting mechanism)
- United States v. Anderson, 885 F.2d 1248 (5th Cir. 1989) (paraphrases NFA as firing in response to a single pull)
- Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (upheld Rule at preliminary stage; found ambiguity/deference applicable)
- Aposhian v. Barr, 958 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2020) (panel opinion upholding ATF's interpretation; en banc proceedings noted)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (2013) (rule of lenity applies only if grievous ambiguity remains)
- Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (standing requires injury to plaintiff's own rights)