{"id":3482,"date":"2024-06-23T03:08:12","date_gmt":"2024-06-23T03:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/?p=3482"},"modified":"2024-06-23T03:08:12","modified_gmt":"2024-06-23T03:08:12","slug":"a-lawyers-view-on-the-cargill-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/?p=3482","title":{"rendered":"A Lawyer\u2019s View on the Cargill Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<div class=\"td-post-featured-image\">\n<figure><a href=\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211.jpg\" data-caption=\"Bigstock\"><noscript><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"696\" height=\"464\" class=\"entry-thumb td-modal-image\" src=\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211.jpg\" srcset=\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211.jpg 900w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-700x467.jpg 700w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-770x513.jpg 770w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-217x145.jpg 217w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-430x287.jpg 430w, https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/bigstock-Judge-With-Gavel-On-Table-Att-282348211-597x398.jpg 597w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 696px) 100vw, 696px\" alt=\"\" title=\"Judge With Gavel On Table. Attorney, Court Judge,tribunal And Ju\"\/><\/noscript><\/a><figcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bigstock<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p>Last week, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-bump-stock-ban\/\">U.S. Supreme Court took a major step<\/a> in reining in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives\u2019 (ATF) administrative overreach. The Court held in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-976_e29g.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Garland v. Cargill<\/em><\/a> that the agency exceeded its statutory authority by classifying semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks as \u201cmachineguns\u201d under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).<\/p>\n<p>The NFA <a href=\"https:\/\/www.atf.gov\/firearms\/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-0#:~:text=26%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%205845(b,single%20function%20of%20the%20trigger\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">defines<\/a> a \u201cmachinegun\u201d as \u201cany 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.\u201d For many years, the ATF took the consistent position \u2013 over several administrations \u2013 that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks did not meet this definition.<\/p>\n<p>However, the agency did an about-face in the wake of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/las-vegas-shooting\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">tragic murders<\/a> in 2017 in Las Vegas in which bump stocks were used by the murderer. That awful, criminal incident prompted an immediate political response. While Congress was considering several bills to ban bump stocks, ATF charged ahead and issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/FR-2018-12-26\/pdf\/2018-27763.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Final Rule<\/a> in 2018, amending its regulations to explicitly classify bump stocks as \u201cmachineguns\u201d for the purposes of federal law. In doing so, the ATF repudiated its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.documentcloud.org\/documents\/4418662-ATF-Bump-Stock-Letter-April-6-2017.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">longstanding interpretation<\/a> and reimagined the text of the NFA to fit its purposes. As a result, ATF <a href=\"https:\/\/www.atf.gov\/file\/133136\/download\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ordered<\/a> bump stock owners to destroy or surrender their devices or face criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n<h4>Definitions Have Meaning<\/h4>\n<p>A legal challenge made its way through the <a href=\"https:\/\/reason.com\/2023\/01\/09\/the-5th-circuit-says-the-atf-exceeded-its-legal-authority-when-it-banned-bump-stocks\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">federal courts<\/a> until the question of whether the agency\u2019s action defied Congress\u2019s \u201cmachinegun\u201d definition landed at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>The Court struck down the ATF rule banning bump stocks by a vote of 6-3 in an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-976_e29g.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">opinion<\/a> authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. This was not a difficult case on the face of the law.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not qualify as a machinegun for two main reasons. First, such a rifle cannot fire more than one shot \u201cby a single function of the trigger.\u201d\u00a0 Second, even if it could, it would not do so \u201cautomatically.\u201d\u00a0 The Court explained that adding a bump stock does not change the trigger mechanism of the semiautomatic rifle, which is the key factor Congress used to define a \u201cmachinegun.\u201d\u00a0 Rather, if a shooter wants to fire multiple shots from such a rifle, he \u201cmust also actively maintain just the right amount of forward pressure on the rifle\u2019s front grip with his nontrigger hand.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It is important to note that the decision did not invoke the Second Amendment. Rather, the case involved a simple question of statutory interpretation: does the law mean what is says?\u00a0 The ATF\u2019s 180-degree pivot from its prior interpretation flagrantly defied the statutory text. Indeed, if the ATF\u2019s expansive reading of the NFA were to stand \u2013 under which a firearm could be classified as a \u201cmachinegun\u201d based solely on an individual\u2019s ability to maintain forward pressure to achieve continuous fire instead of classification based upon the trigger mechanism \u2013 the agency could have used the same rationale to ban most semiautomatic rifles. But ATF conceded that semiautomatic rifles without bump stocks fire only one shot with each trigger pull, which demonstrated to the Court that ATF\u2019s arguments about what constitutes a \u201cmachinegun\u201d were inconsistent and, frankly, incoherent.<\/p>\n<h4>Separation of Powers<\/h4>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-976_e29g.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Cargill <\/em>decision<\/a> is important because it reflects the conservative majority\u2019s commitment to <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/essay\/intro.8-2\/ALDE_00001303\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">textualism<\/a> and the separation of powers. The ruling stands for the simple proposition that courts and agencies must follow the statutory text as written rather than read in their own policy goals. In recent years, ATF has brazenly pursued its own agenda through regulatory fiat, as it has justified major policy changes by reinventing the statutory text to fit its goals. The Court has sent a clear message that ATF does not have the authority to reimagine the law. Rather, the power to amend the law resides exclusively with Congress.<\/p>\n<p>While antigun groups have characterized the ruling as the product of an \u201cactivist\u201d Court, the opposite is true. By limiting agencies and the courts to the text of a statute, the decision upholds the separation of powers by leaving the work of passing laws to Congress. The argument \u2013 embraced by the dissent \u2013 that the Court should expand the definition of \u201cmachinegun\u201d to fit devices like bump stocks advocates for a judicial and administrative power grab in which judges and agencies go beyond Congress\u2019s clear statutory mandate. As a result, the Court\u2019s dedication to <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/essay\/intro.8-2\/ALDE_00001303\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">textualism<\/a> is a form of judicial restraint.<\/p>\n<p>All told, the <em>Cargill decision<\/em> is a victory for our constitutional order.<\/p>\n<p><em>Shelby Baird Smith is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nssf.org\/articles\/cargill-decision-demonstrates-textualism-in-action\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">NSSF<\/a>\u2019s Chief Litigation Counsel. She previously clerked for Judge Thomas M. Hardiman on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito on the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/a-lawyers-view-on-the-cargill-decision\/\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bigstock Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step in reining in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives\u2019 (ATF) administrative overreach. The Court held in Garland v. Cargill that the agency exceeded its statutory authority by classifying semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks as \u201cmachineguns\u201d under the National Firearms Act of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3483,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3482","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3482\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3483"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}