65 F.4th 895
6th Cir.2023Background
- The National Firearms Act defines "machinegun" (26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)) to include weapons that fire "automatically" more than one shot by "a single function of the trigger," and includes parts "designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun."
- The ATF historically treated bump stocks as lawful, but after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting it promulgated a 2018 Rule classifying bump-stock-type devices as machinegun parts and giving possessors 90 days to comply.
- Scott Hardin owned bump stocks and sued the ATF in the Western District of Kentucky, which granted the ATF judgment on the administrative record; Hardin appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
- Circuits are split: the D.C. and Tenth Circuits upheld the ATF; the Fifth Circuit (en banc) rejected the ATF; the Sixth Circuit was evenly divided en banc on the Rule.
- Central legal disputes concern the meanings of 'automatically' and 'a single function of the trigger,' whether Chevron deference applies to the ATF's new interpretation, and whether the rule of lenity governs construction of this criminal statute.
- The Sixth Circuit majority held the statute ambiguous, declined to apply Chevron because the scheme is predominantly criminal and courts are competent to construe criminal law, applied the rule of lenity, and reversed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hardin) | Defendant's Argument (ATF/Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bump stock is a "part" of a machinegun under § 5845(b) | Bump stocks do not change the firearm's internal trigger function; they do not make a single trigger function fire multiple shots | Bump stocks cause a semiautomatic to fire rapidly and thus fall within the statutory definition | Statute ambiguous as applied; construing ambiguity in defendant's favor under lenity, bump stocks are not covered; reversal |
| Whether the statute is ambiguous as applied to bump stocks | Statute unambiguously excludes bump stocks | Statute reasonably read to include bump stocks | Court: ambiguous (multiple reasonable interpretations) |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to ATF's interpretation | Chevron inapplicable/waived because statute has criminal penalties and courts should construe criminal laws | Deference unnecessary to decide but agency interpretation permissible under Chevron | Chevron not applied; courts must resolve interpretation in criminal context |
| Remedy — validity of the ATF Rule and district court judgment | Rule exceeds statutory authority; should be struck down | Rule valid and enforceable | Court reversed district court and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)
- United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (2014) (noting Government readings of criminal statutes receive no special deference)
- United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994) (rule of lenity applies when statutory ambiguity remains after interpretation)
- Cargill v. Garland, 57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc) (addressed bump stocks; majority rejected ATF rule; discussed lenity)
- Aposhian v. Barr, 958 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2020) (upheld ATF view that bump stocks fall within machinegun definition)
- Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (upheld ATF Rule)
- Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland, 19 F.4th 890 (6th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (court evenly divided on bump-stock Rule)