The 2019 move by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) could have instantly made criminals out of at least half a million law-abiding Americans. But in Cargill v. Garland, the appeals court in a 13-3 ruling finalized its January decision in the case.
The overwhelming decision by the judges mandated that the case be remanded to a lower court to reverse its prior decision that upheld the bump stock ban.
The judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Cargill.
The court was clear in its decision. It acknowledged the fact that many critics charge that non-mechanical bump stocks “contribute to firearm deaths and that the Final Rule is good public policy.” Again, it was the ATF and not Congress that instituted the new regulation.
At that point, the Fifth Circuit explained that “it is not our job to determine our nation’s public policy. That solemn responsibility lies with the Congress, and our task is confined to deciding cases and controversies, which requires us to apply the law as Congress has written it.
Those words should bring a tremendous sigh of relief to all gun rights advocates. It is elected members of Congress, not unelected Washington bureaucrats, who are charged with making public policy. Too often agencies like the ATF take it upon themselves to do Congress’ job.
Meanwhile, legislators skirt controversial issues and allow this to happen. In this instance, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gun rights by applying the clear constitutional principle of separation of powers.
A substantial segment of the Cargill case rested on defining the term “machine gun.” The judges noted that Congress used the mechanism by which a gun’s trigger causes bullets to be fired to make that critical designation. Thus, the court, as it clearly stated, was bound to follow that definition as well.
The court further ruled that a semi-automatic rifle with a non-mechanical bump stock does not qualify as a machine gun under the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.
The judges added that the congressional statute governing machine guns is unambiguous, and any interpretation necessary is required by the rule of lenity to favor Cargill. In other words, the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not provide indications or warnings that “possession of a non-mechanical bump stock is a crime.”
The Fifth Circuit therefore reversed the district court ruling, meaning that non-mechanical bump stocks are now legalized in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
The ATF did not request a stay in the ruling.
The court’s decision is hardly the final word on the legality of non-mechanical bump stocks. Three other circuits have ruled in favor of the ATF’s ban, which means there is now a Circuit Court split.
This sets the stage for a highly likely review by the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter. The good news for gun control advocates is that the current makeup of the high court strongly favors the Second Amendment, as was clearly shown in last year’s landmark Bruen decision.
It is fortunate that the Fifth Circuit chose to follow the Constitution and put the brakes on regulatory agencies passing what amounts to new laws. That is Congress’ responsibility, whether lawmakers want that role or not.
It will be fascinating to see how the high court handles the controversy if and when it comes before them. The ensuing ruling could go much further than just bump stocks and conclusively prohibit federal agencies from overreaching into implementing what amounts to new legislation.
