Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

“[T]he term ‘automatically’ as it modifies ‘shoots, is de-
signed  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.  The term ‘machinegun’ 
includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that al-
lows 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 66553–66554. 

The  final  Rule  also  repudiated  ATF’s  previous  guidance 
that bump stocks did not qualify as “machineguns” under 
§5845(b).  Id., at 66530–66531.  And, it ordered owners of 
bump  stocks  to  destroy  them  or  surrender  them  to  ATF 
within  90  days.    Id.,  at  66530.    Bump-stock  owners  who 
failed  to comply would be subject  to criminal  prosecution.  
Id., at 66525; see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o)(1). 

C 
  Michael Cargill surrendered two bump stocks to ATF un-
der protest.  He then filed suit to challenge the final Rule, 
asserting a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.  
As relevant, Cargill alleged that ATF lacked statutory au-
thority to promulgate the final Rule because bump stocks 
are  not  “machinegun[s]”  as  defined  in  §5845(b).    After  a 
bench trial,  the District  Court  entered  judgment for  ATF.  
The court concluded that “a bump stock fits the statutory 
definition  of  a  ‘machinegun.’ ”    Cargill  v.  Barr,  502 
F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1194 (WD Tex. 2020). 
  The  Court  of  Appeals  initially  affirmed,  20  F. 4th  1004 
(CA5 2021), but later reversed after rehearing en banc, 57 
F. 4th 447 (CA5 2023).  A majority agreed, at a minimum,