HomeNewsLegislation & LegalGarland v. Cargill, Two Years Later: Where Bump Stocks Stand Now

Garland v. Cargill, Two Years Later: Where Bump Stocks Stand Now

In June 2024, the Supreme Court sided with Michael Cargill, an Austin gun-store owner and Army veteran, in a case that started with two bump stocks he surrendered to ATF. Two years later, the decision still shapes how courts look at ATF’s power to reinterpret federal gun laws.

How the case started

After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, ATF issued a rule in 2018 reclassifying bump stocks as “machineguns” under federal law. Owners had to destroy them or turn them in. Cargill, who owns Central Texas Gun Works, surrendered his and then sued, arguing ATF had rewritten a statute that only Congress can change. The New Civil Liberties Alliance represented him.

What the Court decided

On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Garland v. Cargill. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is not a machinegun under the federal definition, because it does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” ATF’s rule was invalid.

The case was decided on the statute, not the Second Amendment. The Court did not say bump stocks are constitutionally protected. It said ATF could not ban them by redefining a word Congress wrote in 1934.

What changed, and what did not

  • Federal law: bump stocks are no longer treated as machineguns. Congress could change that by passing a new law, and bills to do so have been introduced, but none has passed.
  • State law: many states ban bump stocks on their own. Everytown’s tracker lists 18 states with a ban as of January 2026, including California, Florida, Maryland, New York and Virginia. In those states, the Supreme Court ruling does not make them legal.
  • The bigger legacy: Cargill is now cited in challenges to other ATF rules where the agency reinterpreted older statutes, along with the end of the Chevron doctrine later that same month.

Why it matters

Cargill was not a large advocacy group or a manufacturer. He was a small-business owner who turned in his property and then challenged the rule that took it. The case is a reminder that individual plaintiffs still move federal gun policy.

Fully Loaded Clip has archive material with Michael Cargill, which we plan to publish separately.

Sources

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments