Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

GARLAND v. CARGILL 

Syllabus 

are lawful “simply because the [trigger] moves back and forth . . . would 
exalt  artifice  above  reality  and  enable  evasion  of  the  federal  ma-
chinegun ban.”  Id., at 41–42.  The presumption against ineffectiveness 
cannot do the work that ATF asks of it.  Interpreting §5845(b) to ex-
clude semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks comes nowhere 
close to making the statute useless.  Pp. 17–19. 

57 F. 4th 447, affirmed. 

  THOMAS, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and  BARRETT, JJ., joined.   ALITO,  J., 
filed a concurring opinion.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in 
which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.