Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

pull of the trigger. 
  Moreover,  bump  stocks  are  not  the  only  devices  that 
transform  semiautomatic  rifles  into  weapons  capable  of 
rapid fire with a single function of the trigger.  Recognizing 
the creativity of gun owners and manufacturers, Congress 
wrote  a  statute  “loaded  with  anticircumvention  devices.”  
Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  68.    The  definition  of  “machinegun”  cap-
tures “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).  Not “more than four, five, or six shots,” 
not “single pull” or “single push” of the trigger.”  Following 
that  definition,  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco,  Firearms 
and Explosives (ATF) has reasonably classified many trans-
formative  devices  other  than  bump  stocks  as  “ma-
chinegun[s].”6  For instance, ATF has long classified “forced 
reset  triggers”  as  machineguns.    See  Brief  for  Petitioners 
28.  A forced reset trigger includes a device that forces the 
trigger  back  downward  after  the  shooter’s  initial  pull,  re-
peatedly pushing the curved lever against the shooter’s sta-
tionary trigger finger.  See ibid.  To a shooter, a semiauto-
matic rifle equipped with a forced reset trigger feels much 
like an M16.  He must pull the trigger only once and then 
maintain pressure to achieve continuous fire.  See ibid. 
  Gun owners themselves also have built motorized devices 
that will repeatedly pull a semiautomatic firearm’s curved 

—————— 

6 The majority emphasizes that ATF previously took the position that 
certain bump-stock devices were not “machinegun[s]” under the statute.  
See ante, at 3, 19.  ATF, however, has repeatedly classified other devices 
that modify semiautomatic rifles by allowing a single activation of the 
shooter to automate repeat fire as machineguns.  See, e.g., 83 Fed. Reg. 
66518,  n. 4  (referencing  ATF  classifications  of  trigger  reset  devices); 
Akins v. United States, 312 F. Appx. 197, 200–201 (CA11 2009) (per cu-
riam)  (upholding  classification  of  Akins  Accelerator,  a  spring-operated 
bump stock); United States v. Camp, 343 F. 3d 743, 745 (CA5 2003) (up-
holding classification of fishing reel attached to a rifle trigger that, upon 
activation, repeatedly operated the curved lever of the rifle).