Garland v. Cargill
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Garland v. Cargill and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Garland v. Cargill.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns under the National Firearms Act. The Court found that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun. The decision focused on the interpretation of 'single function of the trigger' and 'automatically' in the statute.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Garland v. Cargill.
The Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule classifying bump stocks as machineguns under § 5845(b).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Garland v. Cargill. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The case primarily concerns whether the ATF exceeded its statutory authority under the National Firearms Act.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The Court's role in reviewing and invalidating the ATF's rule is central to the decision.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
-
Why Void for Vagueness is relevant to Garland v. Cargill
The Court found the statutory definition ambiguous, which could relate to vagueness concerns.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A majority agreed that § 5845(b) is ambiguous as to whether a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fits the statutory definition of a machinegun and resolved that ambiguity in Cargill's favor.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Garland v. Cargill that support the summary and concepts above.
ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a 'machinegun' under § 5845(b).
A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot 'by a single function of the trigger.'
Firing multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger.
