Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–976 
_________________ 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL CARGILL 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 14, 2024] 

  JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
  Congress has long restricted access to “ ‘machinegun[s],’ ” 
a category of firearms defined by the ability to “shoot, auto-
matically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the 
trigger.”  26 U. S. C. §5845(b); see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o).  
Semiautomatic  firearms,  which  require  shooters  to  reen-
gage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns.  This 
case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-
automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage 
the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—con-
verts the rifle into a “machinegun.”  We hold that it does not 
and therefore affirm. 

I 
A 
  Under  the  National  Firearms  Act  of  1934,  a  “ma-
chinegun”  is  “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.”  §5845(b).  The statutory definition 
also includes “any part designed and intended . . . for use in