Cargill v. Garland

• Decision Date: 14 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-51016,20-51016
• Citation: 20 F.4th 1004
• Parties: Michael CARGILL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Merrick GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General; United States Department of Justice; Regina Lombardo, in her official capacity as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants—Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

20 F.4th 1004

Michael CARGILL, Plaintiff—Appellant,

v.Merrick GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General; United States Department of Justice; Regina Lombardo, in her official capacity as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 20-51016

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED December 14, 2021

Caleb Kruckenberg, Pacific Legal Foundation, Arlington, VA, Richard Abbott Samp, Chief Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff—Appellant.

Bradley Hinshelwood, Trial Attorney, Kyle T. Edwards, Mark Bernard Stern, Esq., Abby Christine Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants—Appellees.

Ilya Shapiro, Esq., Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute.

John D. Cline, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae Due Process Institute.

Glenn Evans Roper, Pacific Legal Foundation, Highlands Ranch, CO, Daniel Ortner, Counsel, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.

Joseph Greenlee, Firearms Policy Coalition, Sacramento, CA, for Amici Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition, Center to Keep and Bear Arms.

Ian Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Amicus Curiae Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Before Dennis, Higginson, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge On October 1, 2017, a gunman firing several semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks killed 58 people and wounded 500 more in Las Vegas. In the aftermath of this tragedy, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") promulgated a rule (the "Bump Stock Rule" or "Rule") stating that bump stocks are "machinegun[s]" for purposes of the National Firearms Act ("NFA") and the federal statutory bar on the possession or sale of new machine guns.¹ Bump-Stock-Type Devices , 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018) ; see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o)(1), 921(a)(23) ; 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Cargill has challenged the Rule, arguing that it contradicts the plain language of the statute, that it exceeds ATF's statutory authority, and that it violates the separation of powers. After a trial, the district court rejected Cargill's claims, concluding in a 75-page order that the Rule "properly classifies a bump stock as a ‘machinegun’ within the statutory definition." Because we agree with the district court that bump stocks qualify as machine guns under the best interpretation of the statute, we AFFIRM.²

I.

A.

Federal law generally makes it "unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun." 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). The federal machine gun ban incorporates the NFA's definition of "machinegun," 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(23), which reads as follows:

The term "machinegun" means any 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

Congress has vested in the Attorney General authority to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to enforce the NFA and the federal machine gun ban. See 18 U.S.C. § 926(a) ; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7801(a)(2)(A), 7805(a). The Attorney General has delegated this responsibility to ATF. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.130(a)(1)-(2).

B.

As the district court found, a "bump stock" is "an accessory attached to a firearm to increase its rate of fire, to make it easier for somebody to fire a weapon faster." More specifically, bump stocks are devices that "harness the force of recoil to enable a weapon to fire multiple rounds when, while keeping the trigger finger stationary, the shooter pushes forward with the non-shooting hand." These devices generally consist of "a sliding shoulder stock molded or otherwise attached to a grip," "a ‘trigger ledge,’ on which the shooter places his finger," and "a detachable rectangular receiver module that goes in the receiver well of the bump stock's handle to guide the recoil of the weapon when fired." The "firing sequence" of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock "begins when the shooter presses forward on the firearm to initially engage the trigger finger." The gun then "slides back and forth[,] and its recoil energy bumps the trigger finger into the trigger to continue firing until the shooter stops pushing forward with his non-shooting hand or the weapon runs out of ammunition or malfunctions." (emphasis added). Thus, "when a bump stock is used as intended, the shooter pushes forward to engage the trigger finger with the trigger, which causes a single trigger pull that initiates a firing sequence that continues to fire as long as the shooter continues to push forward." See also 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,516 ("Shooters use bump-stock-type devices with semiautomatic firearms to accelerate the firearms' cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire.").

Prior to the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, ATF had maintained that bump stocks that did not use internal springs, such as the device used in the Las Vegas shooting, were not machine guns for purposes of federal law. 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,516. However, after the Las Vegas shooting, ATF decided to reconsider that position, and it issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in December 2017. Application of the Definition of Machinegun to "Bump Fire" Stocks and Other Similar Devices , 82 Fed. Reg. 60,929 (Dec. 26, 2017). Shortly thereafter, then-President Donald Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Department of Justice "to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns." Application of the Definition of Machinegun to "Bump Fire" Stocks and Other Similar Devices , 83 Fed. Reg. 7,949, 7,949 (Feb. 20, 2018). ATF issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in March 2018, Bump-Stock Devices , 83 Fed. Reg. 13,442 (Mar. 29, 2018), and, after receiving more than 186,000 comments, promulgated a final rule in December 2018. 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,514, 66,519.³

The Bump Stock Rule interprets the NFA's above-quoted definition of "machinegun." See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The Rule states:

For purposes of this definition, the term "automatically" as it modifies "shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot," means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and "single function of the trigger" means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions.

83 Fed. Reg. at 66,553 (codified at 27 C.F.R. §§ 447.11, 478.11, 479.11 ). Based on this interpretation of the terms "automatically" and "single function of the trigger," the Rule concludes that the "term ‘machinegun’ includes a bump-stock-type device," since bump stocks enable "a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter." Id. at 66,553 -54.

By its own terms, the Rule became "effective" on March 26, 2019, ninety days after its promulgation. Id. at 66,514. The Rule explains that "individuals are subject to criminal liability only for possessing bump-stock-type devices after the effective date of regulation," and it instructs bump stock owners to either "undertake destruction of the devices" or "abandon [them] at the nearest ATF office." Id. at 66,525, 66,530.

C.

Following the issuance of the Bump Stock Rule, Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to ATF. He then sued ATF under the Administrative Procedure Act and various constitutional provisions, seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction preventing the enforcement of the Bump Stock Rule against him and others similarly situated, along with the return of his bump stocks.

After holding a bench trial, the district court denied Cargill's requested relief on all counts. The court first determined that ATF had statutory authority to issue the Bump Stock Rule and that the Rule did not violate the constitutional principles of non-delegation and separation of powers. The court then concluded that the Bump Stock Rule adopts the "correct" interpretation of the terms "automatically" and "single function of the trigger." Accordingly, the court held that the Rule "properly classifies a bump stock as a ‘machinegun’ within the statutory definition." Cargill timely filed this appeal.

II.

We first consider the statutory interpretation issue. Recall that, for purposes of federal law, "[t]he term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots ... automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," including "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Cargill argues that the Bump Stock Rule's conclusion that bump stocks qualify as "machinegun[s]" under this definition contradicts the statute's unambiguous terms. Cargill further argues that even if the statute is ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires the court to resolve any ambiguity in his favor. The district court rejected these arguments, concluding that the "Rule adopts the proper interpretation of ‘machinegun’ by including bump stock devices" and that "the rule of lenity does not apply." We agree with the district court's conclusions.⁴

A.

Cargill argues that bump stocks unambiguously are not "machinegun...