Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

10 

GARLAND v. CARGILL 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

of the shooter rather than the firing mechanism.  In Staples 
v. United States, 511 U. S. 600 (1994), the Court noted that 
“a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trig-
ger”  is  a  machinegun,  as  opposed  to  “a  weapon  that  fires 
only  one  shot  with  each  pull  of  the  trigger,”  which  is  (at 
most) a semiautomatic firearm.  Id., at 602, n. 1 (emphasis 
added).  A “pull” of the trigger necessarily requires human 
input. 
  When a shooter initiates the firing sequence on a bump-
stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle, he does so with “a sin-
gle  function  of  the  trigger”  under  that  term’s  ordinary 
meaning.  Just as the shooter of an M16 need only pull the 
trigger and maintain backward pressure (on the trigger), a 
shooter of a bump-stock-equipped AR–15 need only pull the 
trigger and maintain forward pressure (on the gun).  Both 
shooters  pull  the  trigger  only  once  to  fire  multiple  shots.  
The only difference is that for an M16, the shooter’s back-
ward pressure makes the rifle fire continuously because of 
an internal mechanism: The curved lever of the trigger does 
not  move.    In  a  bump-stock-equipped  AR–15,  the  mecha-
nism for continuous fire is external: The shooter’s forward 
pressure moves the curved lever back and forth against his 
stationary trigger finger.  Both rifles require only one initial 
action (that is, one “single function of the trigger”) from the 
shooter combined with continuous pressure to activate con-
tinuous fire.3 
  The  majority  resists  this  ordinary  understanding  of the 
term  “function  of  the  trigger”  with  two  technical  argu-
ments.4  First, it attempts to contrast the action required to 

—————— 

3 The majority thinks that this logic should apply just as well to man-
ual bump firing.  Ante, at 14.  As described supra, at 5, and infra, at 13, 
however, bump firing requires much more from the shooter than the sim-
ple forward pressure required to fire a bump-stock-equipped semiauto-
matic rifle. 

4 The  majority  claims  that  these  arguments  explain  only  “why,  even 
assuming a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock could fire