Amicus Curiae Brief — Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Michael Cargill
Supreme Court briefJan 29, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 22-976
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
__________________________________________
MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL CARGILL,
Respondent.
__________________________________________
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
__________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
__________________________________________
DAVID H. THOMPSON
Counsel of Record
PETER A. PATTERSON
JOHN D. OHLENDORF
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
January 29, 2024
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4
I.
II.
Semiautomatic Firearms Equipped with Bump
Stocks Fire a Single Round Each Time the
Trigger Functions. ............................................... 4
A.
Semiautomatic Firearms Are Only Capable
of Firing One Shot Each Time the Trigger
Functions. .................................................... 5
B.
Bump Stocks Increase the Speed of a Semiautomatic Firearm’s Operation, But They
Do Not Enable It To Fire More Than
One Round Each Time the Trigger
Functions. .................................................. 11
Bump Stocks Do Not Enable Semiautomatic
Firearms To Shoot Automatically More
Than One Shot by a Single Function of the
Trigger. .............................................................. 14
A.
Firearms Equipped with Bump Stocks Do
Not Shoot More than One Shot By a Single
Function of the Trigger. ............................ 14
B.
Firearms Equipped with Non-Mechanical
Bump Stocks Do Not Function Automatically............................................................ 24
ii
C.
Reading the Statutory Language As a
Whole Confirms Beyond Any Doubt that
Non-Mechanical Bump Stocks Are Not “Machineguns.” ................................................ 26
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 32
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page
Aposhian v. Barr,
958 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2020) ........................ 18, 21
Aposhian v. Wilkinson,
989 F.3d 890 (10th Cir. 2021) ........................ 15, 20
Azar v. Allina Health Servs.,
587 U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) ............... 18, 19
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co.,
534 U.S. 438 (2002) ............................................ 2, 4
Biden v. Nebraska,
600 U.S. ---, 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023) ..................... 22
Guedes v. BATFE,
66 F.4th 1018 (D.C. Cir. 2023) .......... 15, 18, 24, 25
Guedes v. BATFE,
920 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ................ 24, 25, 29, 30
Gun Owners of America v. Garland,
19 F.4th 890 (6th Cir. 2021) ................................ 15
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.,
582 U.S. 79 (2017) ................................................ 22
Hernandez v. Mesa,
589 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) ....................... 22
National Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Department of Def.,
583 U.S. 109 (2018) .............................................. 16
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon,
596 U.S. 450 (2022) ................................................ 2
Staples v. United States,
511 U.S. 600 (1994) .............................................. 18
iv
United States v. Alkazahg,
2021 WL 4058360 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 7,
2021) ..................................................................... 16
United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC,
2023 WL 5689770 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2023) ........ 31
Utility Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,
573 U.S. 302 (2014) ................................................ 1
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(b) ............................................. 2, 3, 4, 14, 17
22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
27 C.F.R.
§ 478.11........................................................... 17, 21
OTHER AUTHORITIES
ANTONIN SCALIA & BRIAN GARNER, READING LAW
(2012) .................................................................... 27
AR-15 ANIMATION (2006), https://bit.ly/496BvYQ .... 10
BUMP FIRE ANIMATION, https://bit.ly/42btgsn (last
visited Jan. 23, 2024) ........................................... 14
Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514,
66,535 (Dec. 26, 2018) ........................ 21, 22, 26, 28
HUNTER- ED, Video: How a Cartridge is Fired,
https://bit.ly/498JNj7
(last visited Jan. 23, 2024) ..................................... 5
HUNTER-ED, How a Cartridge is Fired, https://bit.ly/
4b9CB8g (last visited Jan. 23, 2024) ..................... 6
v
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, 3 Firearm Modes of
Operation (& How They're Powered) (Oct. 4,
2023), https://bit.ly/3UacJTo ................................. 7
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work?
Bolt-Actions (Apr. 25, 2023),
https://bit.ly/3UfsCbh............................................. 8
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work?
Lever-Actions (May 25, 2023),
https://bit.ly/47NOkGC .......................................... 8
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work?
Semi-Automatic (Self-Loading) Mechanisms (Dec.
30, 2022), https://bit.ly/492f5be ............................. 8
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work?
Single-Shot Mechanisms (July 14, 2023),
https://bit.ly/3HPcTIN ........................................... 7
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work?
Slide/Pump-Actions (May 25, 2023),
https://bit.ly/3SrvhgP ............................................. 8
John W. Treakle, Rifleman Q&A: Stiker-Fired Actions Explained (Feb. 8, 2022),
https://bit.ly/4b8WKLn .......................................... 5
YOUTUBE (Aug. 7, 2021), https://bit.ly/496O5ax ...... 25
1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that works to create
a world of maximal human liberty and freedom. It
seeks to protect, defend, and advance the People’s
rights, especially but not limited to the inalienable,
fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear
arms. FPC accomplishes its mission through legislative and grassroots advocacy, legal and historical research, litigation, education, and outreach programs.
FPC’s legislative and grassroots advocacy programs
promote constitutionally based public policy. Since its
founding in 2014, FPC has emerged as a leading advocate for individual liberty in state and federal
courts, regularly participating as a party or amicus
curiae.
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
“Under our system of government, Congress
makes laws and the President, acting at times
through agencies like [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives], ‘faithfully execute[s]’
them”—an authority that assuredly “does not include
a power to revise clear statutory terms.” Utility Air
Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 327 (2014) (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3). The authority of the executive branch—and the judiciary
too—is a designedly humble one: “to interpret the
1 Pursuant to SUP. CT. R. 37.6, amicus certifies that no coun-
sel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, no party
or party’s counsel made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or submission, and no person other than amici or their
counsel made such a monetary contribution.
2
language of the statute enacted by Congress.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 461 (2002). Yet
Petitioners—by promulgating the rule at issue and
asking this Court to sustain it—have refused to take
Congress at its word. Instead of faithfully executing
the plain language of Congress’s definition of “machinegun,” Petitioners seek to rewrite it, so as to jibe
more closely with what they perceive to be “the statute’s purpose.” Pet.Br.35. Because neither a court nor
an agency has any “warrant to elevate vague invocations of statutory purpose over the words Congress
chose,” Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450,
463 (2022), the court below was right to invalidate Petitioners’ rule.
For nearly a hundred years, Congress has tightly
regulated “machineguns”—a term it has carefully defined as any weapon that can “shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger,” as well as “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(b). That definition notably does not refer to the
speed with which a firearm can shoot multiple rounds
or the ease of doing so. Instead, it distinguishes lawful
from unlawful arms by reference to the mechanical architecture of the firearm itself: firearms that continue
to fire multiple rounds as long as the trigger is depressed without any other manual activity for reloading (commonly known as “fully automatic” firearms)
are in the category of “machineguns,” and firearms
that require a new movement of the trigger for each
single shot (“semiautomatic” and manual-action firearms) are not.
3
The bump-stock devices at issue in this case also
fall outside the term “machinegun” as Congress has
defined it. A bump stock may increase the firearm’s
rate of fire, but it does not change the mechanics of
how a semiautomatic firearm shoots. And it is in the
inherent nature of those mechanics that such a
weapon can shoot only one round for each full backward-forward cycle of the trigger. That basic fact remains true when the arm is equipped with a bump
stock. The bump stocks at issue here do not enable a
semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one shot “by
a single function of the trigger,” id. they just enable
the user to make the trigger function more quickly.
Nor do they enable an equipped semiautomatic firearm to fire multiple shots “automatically,” id.—for the
firing sequence of a bump-stock equipped firearm does
not continue without any further user input, but rather requires the user to undertake the independent
physical action of continuously pushing the firearm
forward with his other hand. In other words, a semiautomatic firearm equipped with one of the bump
stocks at issue will fire only a single bullet when the
trigger is depressed absent additional action by the
user.
When ATF first considered the legality of bump
stocks over twenty years ago, it correctly concluded
that they do not qualify as “machineguns.” Yet in
2018, in the face of acute political pressure, the agency
reversed course and adopted a new definition of the
term that encompasses the bump stocks at issue. Petitioners’ defense of that newfound interpretation either ignores the statute Congress enacted or seeks to
rewrite it. In place of the statutory language “single
function of the trigger,” id., Petitioners would write
4
“single pull of the trigger”—a feat of linguistic gymnastics that still fails to encompass bump stocks. And
instead of Congress’s clear rule that a machinegun
must fire multiple shots “automatically . . . by a single
function of the trigger,” id. (emphasis added), the Government would substitute a vague and manipulable
inquiry into the “degree of human input” required to
fire more than one shot. Pet.Br.35. All of these maneuvers, Petitioners maintain, are necessary to fulfill “the
statute’s purpose”: restricting the ownership of any
firearms that are “dangerous” because of their “rapidfire capability.” Pet.Br.35, 40.
This Court has “stated time and again that courts
must presume that a legislature says in a statute
what it means and means in a statute what it says
there. When the words of a statute are unambiguous,
then, this first canon is also the last: judicial inquiry
is complete.” Sigmon Coal, 534 U.S. at 461–62
(cleaned up). Congress chose to define “machinegun”
with clear and unambiguous terms that refer to the
functioning of a firearm’s trigger, not its rate of fire.
Because the bump stocks at issue plainly do not qualify as machine guns under that precise definition, Petitioners’ decision to regulate them as if they did is
contrary to law and must be set aside.
ARGUMENT
I.
Semiautomatic Firearms Equipped with
Bump Stocks Fire a Single Round Each
Time the Trigger Functions.
To understand whether a bump stock can be used
to “convert[ ] a weapon into a machinegun,” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(b), it is necessary to understand the basics of
how firearms function, and precisely how bump stocks
5
affect that functionality. We thus begin with a brief
discussion of the mechanics of modern firearms and of
bump stocks.
A.
Semiautomatic Firearms Are Only Capable of Firing One Shot Each Time the
Trigger Functions.
Modern firearms are breechloaders that fire cartridge ammunition loaded at the “breech,” or back
end, of the firearm (rather than at the front end of the
firearm, through the muzzle). These firearms discharge each round by causing a firing pin to impact
the primer located in the base of the ammunition cartridge, which then ignites the powder located in the
body of the cartridge and propels the bullet (or shot
pellets) through and out of the firearm’s barrel. In
modern firearms, this process is controlled by what
Congress termed the “function of the trigger”: the user
moves the trigger backward (typically with his index
finger) so that it releases a spring-loaded component
called the “hammer” and allows it to spring forward
and drive the firing pin against the primer.2 A stylized
depiction of this process is reproduced below, and a
video illustrating it can be found at HUNTER-ED,
Video: How a Cartridge is Fired, https://bit.ly/498JNj7
(last visited Jan. 23, 2024).
2 Some firearms employ a striker rather than a hammer to
thrust the firing pin forward. John W. Treakle, Rifleman Q&A:
(Feb.
8,
2022),
Striker-Fired
Actions
Explained
https://bit.ly/4b8WKLn. Like the court below, we generally confine our discussion to firearms that employ a hammer, but the
principles set forth apply equally to striker-fired firearms.
6
Figure 1:
How
a
Cartridge
is
Fired,
HUNTER-ED,
https://bit.ly/4b9CB8g (last visited Jan. 23, 2024).
7
For the firearm to discharge a second round, three
basic things must happen: (1) the mechanism that
propels the firing pin against the primer must be reset; (2) the spent (empty) cartridge (or shell, in the
case of shotguns) must be ejected from the firearm and
a new one, ready to be fired, must be inserted in its
place; and (3) the firing pin must be driven forward
again to strike the primer of the new cartridge. The
combination of parts within the firearm responsible
for these operations is known as the “action,” and most
modern bearable arms are typically sorted into three
general categories based on the type of action they
use.
Some firearm actions operate manually. These
firearms require the user to manually reset the machinery that causes the firing pin to strike the primer—for example, by cocking the hammer so that it
can be released again by the trigger. And they also require the user to eject and replace the spent cartridge
with a new one: after each shot, “the mechanism of the
firearm must be manually cycled by the shooter to unlock, extract, eject, feed, [and] chamber . . . a subsequent cartridge.”3 Some manually operated firearms
contain no magazine for holding extra rounds at all,
and a new round must be physically loaded into the
firearm after each shot.4 Others—such as bolt-action
or lever-action rifles, or pump-action shotguns—may
contain a magazine holding extra rounds inside the
3 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, 3 Firearm Modes of Opera-
tion
(&
How
They're
https://bit.ly/3UacJTo.
Powered)
(Oct.
4,
2023),
4 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work? Single-
Shot Mechanisms (July 14, 2023), https://bit.ly/3HPcTIN.
8
firearm, but the user must still take some physical action to replace the spent cartridge with a new one (for
example, by rotating and sliding the bolt to eject the
spent cartridge and chamber a new one).5 In any case,
once the firearm is reloaded and re-cocked, the user
must then cause the trigger to release the hammer in
order to fire a successive shot. Any additional shots
require a full repetition of the entire sequence.
Many other firearms operate semiautomatically.
A semiautomatic action harnesses the energy from firing a round to perform the first two of the operations
described above: to automatically eject the spent cartridge and load a new cartridge in its place,6 and also
to re-cock the firearm’s hammer so that it is ready to
fire a successive round. As with a manual action, however, the user must manually perform the third action: releasing the hammer by pulling the trigger so
that it can strike the firing pin again.
The plurality opinion below described the mechanics of this process well. The portion of a semiautomatic firearm that ultimately drives the firing pin
into the primer in the cartridge is comprised of four
5 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work? Bolt-
Actions (Apr. 25, 2023), https://bit.ly/3UfsCbh; NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work? Lever-Actions (May 25, 2023),
https://bit.ly/47NOkGC; NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do
Guns
Work?
Slide/Pump-Actions
(May
25,
2023),
https://bit.ly/3SrvhgP. In some cases, the same action that ejects
and replaces the spent cartridge also re-cocks the hammer.
6 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, How Do Guns Work? Semi-
Automatic (Self-Loading)
https://bit.ly/492f5be.
Mechanisms
(Dec.
30,
2022),
9
basic components: the trigger, sear, hammer, and disconnector.
The trigger is the interface between the
gun’s internal mechanism and the human
finger. The sear is the trigger’s top-forward
geometric plane, which locks snugly into a
groove near the spring of the hammer. The
hammer is the spring-loaded element that
strikes the firing pin, causing ignition of the
charge and propulsion of the bullet. The disconnector is a part that sits on top of the
trigger and serves to reset the hammer after
a round is fired; this resetting is what makes
a semi-automatic weapon semi-automatic.
Pet.App.6a. These parts may be depicted as follows:
Figure 2:
Id.
10
When the trigger is moved backward—again, typically by the user moving it backward with his index
finger—it “disengages the hammer from the sear, allowing the spring to swing the hammer to strike the
firing pin.” Pet.App.6a–7a. That ignites the primer
and fires the round, and the force from the discharge
then “thrusts the bolt backward, which kicks the hammer into the disconnector on top of the still-depressed
trigger.” Pet.App.7a. So long as the hammer is secured
by the disconnector, it cannot be released again to fire
a successive shot. When the trigger is allowed to move
forward, however, it resets: “the hammer is pulled
back into the cocked position and secured by the trigger’s sear as it slips off the disconnector. The user may
then fire again by pulling the trigger, without having
to manually re-cock the hammer.” Id. An animated
graphic illustrating this process is available on the
Fifth Circuit’s website, see AR-15 ANIMATION,
https://bit.ly/496BvYQ.
These components thus streamline much of the
process that must be physically performed by the user
of a manually operated firearm, potentially reducing
the amount of time between shots. But with a semiautomatic firearm no less than a manually operated one,
the trigger must go through a full backward-forward
cycle for each shot: until the trigger moves forward
and resets after one shot, the hammer remains secured by the disconnector; until the trigger moves
backward again, the hammer remains secured by the
sear; and until the hammer is released by both the
disconnector and then the sear, it cannot strike the
firing pin and discharge a successive round.
A final type of firearm, by contrast, operates fully
automatically. Like a semiautomatic action, a fully
11
automatic action uses the energy generated by discharging a round to automatically expel the spent cartridge and insert a new cartridge in its place. But a
fully automatic action also automates the entirety of
the process of cocking and releasing the hammer, such
that so long as the trigger is held backward, “an automatic weapon can shoot continuously until ammunition is depleted.” Pet.App.8a. A fully automatic action
accomplishes this continuous fire through use of “an
‘auto-sear’— a device that serves to re-cock and release the hammer in tandem with the motion of the
bolt for so long as the trigger remains depressed. In
other words, the auto sear enables a pendulum swing
of the hammer in sync with the bolt without any further input from the user . . . .” Id. Unlike a semiautomatic firearm, then, a fully automatic one fires multiple shots each time the trigger is moved backward to
release the hammer and continues to fire as long as
the trigger remains depressed by that single backward movement.
B.
Bump Stocks Increase the Speed of a
Semiautomatic Firearm’s Operation,
But They Do Not Enable It To Fire
More Than One Round Each Time the
Trigger Functions.
As discussed, unlike a fully automatic firearm, a
semiautomatic firearm is capable of firing only one
shot each time the trigger goes through a full backward-forward cycle: moving the trigger backward releases the hammer from the sear and allows it to
strike the firing pin; allowing the trigger to return forward resets it by releasing the hammer from the disconnector and securing it to the sear. A user ordinarily
accomplishes this cycle by moving his index finger
12
backward and forward, but any method of physically
manipulating the trigger backward and forward will
suffice. For example, any semiautomatic firearm can
be “bump fired”: instead of moving his index finger,
the user can hold his index finger stationary and use
his other hand, in conjunction with the firearm’s recoil, to move the firearm back and forth, thereby pressing the trigger forward and backward against his stationary finger.
Bump stocks use the recoil generated when a firearm is discharged to speed up this process of bumpfiring a semiautomatic firearm. Bump stocks replace
the standard stock of a semiautomatic rifle—the back
part of the firearm that fits into the pocket of the
user’s shoulder. “A typical bump stock consists of a
sliding shoulder stock molded to a grip, a trigger ledge
where the shooter places his finger, and a detachable
rectangular receiver module that goes into the receiver well of the bump stock’s handle to guide the recoil of the weapon when fired.” Pet.App.9a. An image
depicting a typical bump-stock is reproduced below.
When using a bump stock, the user holds his trigger
finger steady, and the bump stock facilitates the sequence where the firearm rapidly moves forward and
backward, pushing the trigger against the finger repeatedly and thus causing it to reset and release the
hammer multiple times in quick succession.
13
Figure 3:
Id.
Bump stocks come in two basic varieties: mechanical and non-mechanical. Only the non-mechanical
kind are at issue in this case. Both types rely on the
recoil from a shot to drive the firearm backward—
thereby releasing the pressure on the trigger from the
user’s stationary index finger, allowing it to reset by
shifting the hammer from the disconnector to the
sear. With a mechanical bump stock, the firearm is
then moved forward again—and the trigger is thus
pressed against the stationary index finger and the
hammer released—by an internal spring or similar
mechanism located within the stock. Pet.App.10a.
Non-mechanical bump stocks, by contrast, instead require the user to “maintain[ ] forward pressure on the
gun’s forebody, again causing the trigger to bump into
the trigger finger, maintaining fire.” Pet.App.9a-10a.
14
An animated graphic illustrating the use of a bump
stock is available on the Fifth Circuit’s website, see
BUMP FIRE ANIMATION, https://bit.ly/42btgsn (last visited Jan. 23, 2024).
Either type of bump stock can increase the speed
with which the firearm’s trigger goes through the necessary backward-forward cycle. But neither results in
the firing of more than a single shot each time the cycle repeats. For bump stocks do not alter the internal
architecture of a semiautomatic firearm. And as discussed above, that internal architecture necessarily
requires the trigger to go through a full cycle of movement before discharging each round: until the trigger
moves to the forward position, the hammer is held stationary by the disconnector; and until the trigger
moves again to the back position, the hammer is secured by the sear and cannot strike the firing pin.
II.
Bump Stocks Do Not Enable Semiautomatic
Firearms To Shoot Automatically More
Than One Shot by a Single Function of the
Trigger.
As noted above, a bump stock qualifies under Section 5845 as a “machinegun” only if it can be “use[d]
in converting a weapon” “to shoot, automatically more
than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.”
26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). It cannot.
A.
Firearms Equipped with Bump Stocks
Do Not Shoot More than One Shot By a
Single Function of the Trigger.
1. The first reason why bump stocks do not meet
the statutory standard for machine guns follows directly from the description of a semiautomatic firearm’s operation in Part I: semiautomatic firearms are
15
simply incapable of firing more than a single shot with
each function of the trigger.
At the time of enactment, “ ‘function’ meant the
‘natural and proper action’ of a thing.” Guedes v.
BATFE, 66 F.4th 1018, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (Walker,
J., dissenting) (quoting WEBSTER’S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 876 (2d ed. 1933)). To put it another way, “[s]omething’s ‘function’ was ‘[t]he special
kind of activity proper to [it]; the mode of action by
which it fulfills its purpose.’ ” Id. (quoting 4 OXFORD
ENGLISH DICTIONARY 602 (1933)); see also
Pet.App.20a; Aposhian v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 890,
895 (10th Cir. 2021) (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting);
Gun Owners of America v. Garland, 19 F.4th 890, 912
(6th Cir. 2021) (Murphy, J., dissenting). Accordingly,
the first question presented by Congress’s definition
of “machinegun” is “whether a semi-automatic rifle
equipped with a . . . bump stock fires more than one
shot each time the trigger ‘acts.’ ” Pet.App.20a.
It does not. Until the trigger on such a firearm
“functions” by going through a complete cycle of movement—forward to release the hammer from the disconnector and secure it with the sear, backward again
to release the hammer from the sear to strike the firing pin—a successive shot cannot be fired. A bump
stock increases the speed with which the trigger “acts”
or “functions” by going through this cycle, but it does
not and cannot alter the basic physical mechanism of
the firearm’s action. And that mechanism is incapable
of firing more than one shot for each function of the
trigger so long as it is working properly.
2. Petitioners resist this conclusion, arguing that
a firearm “shoots more than one shot by a single
16
function of the trigger . . . if it fires multiple rounds
after the shooter pulls the trigger once,” and that a
bump-stock equipped semiautomatic firearm satisfies
that requirement. Pet.Br.18 (cleaned up). As an initial
matter, this argument would have the Court effectively red-pencil Congress’s carefully crafted phrase of
art—“single function of the trigger”—and replace it
with different language altogether—“single pull of the
trigger.” That is not this Court’s role. Congress could
have used Petitioners’ preferred phraseology—in fact,
“[i]n defining rifles and shotguns, Congress chose to
use the phrases ‘single pull of the trigger’ and ‘each
pull of the trigger’ respectively.” United States v. Alkazahg, 2021 WL 4058360 at *13 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.
Sept. 7, 2021). But in defining “machinegun,” it instead chose to use the language “single function of the
trigger”—a phrase that appears to have never been
used before in published English, and that was thus
apparently “created by Congress specifically to be
used in these firearm statutes.” Pet.App.26a n.7. “Single pull of the trigger” “are not the words that Congress wrote, and this Court is not free to ‘rewrite the
statute’ to the Government’s liking.” National Ass’n of
Mfrs. v. Department of Def., 583 U.S. 109, 123 (2018)
(quoting Puerto Rico v. Franklin Ca. Tax-Free Trust,
579 U.S. 115, 129 (2016).
Petitioners attempt to minimize Congress’s textual choice, arguing that it used the language “function of the trigger” instead of “pull of the trigger”
merely because it was a “more versatile phrase” that
encompassed “any other single motion, such as a
push, [used] to activate the trigger.” Pet.Br.21–22, 26
(cleaned up). According to Petitioners, “[s]ome automatic firearms that were well known in 1934 used
17
triggers that had to be pushed with the thumb rather
than pulled with the index finger,” and “Congress’s
use of the more general term ‘function’ rather than
‘pull’ ensured that the statute would also cover those
types of automatic firearms.” Pet.Br.22. For similar
reasons, Petitioners’ own interpretation of “function of
the trigger” includes not only “a single pull of the trigger” but also any “analogous motions.” 27 C.F.R.
§ 478.11.
Far from supporting Petitioners’ ultimate conclusion that bump stocks qualify as machine guns, this
argument is in fact fatal to it. The argument concedes
that “a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(b), cannot solely mean “a single pull on the
trigger with a rearward motion of the index finger”—
and that it necessarily includes other actions that “activate” the trigger, Pet.Br.22. The phrase surely must
encompass, then, a user’s “activation” of the trigger by
pulling it when he bump-fires it—not by moving his
index finger rearward against the trigger, but by forcing the trigger forward against the index finger.
And if a “single function of the trigger” includes
pulling (or “activating”) it by bump-firing it, then a
bump stock is not a machine gun. For each time the
user of a bump stock “pulls” the trigger by pressing it
forward against his stationary index finger, only one
shot is fired. Yes, the bump stock increases the rapidity with which the trigger is released and then pulled,
by harnessing the recoil from the previous shot to
move the firearm backward and allow the trigger to
reset, and utilizing the user’s continuous forward
pressure on the firearm to move the trigger against
the index finger—and thus release the hammer from
the sear—very quickly thereafter. But it remains the
18
case that “[t]he trigger . . . must necessarily ‘pull’
backwards and release the rifle’s hammer . . . every
time that the rifle discharges.” Aposhian v. Barr, 958
F.3d 969, 995 (10th Cir. 2020) (Carson, J., dissenting)
(internal citation omitted). “A single action never
causes the rifle to fire more than one shot.” Guedes, 66
F.4th at 1027 (Walker, J., dissenting).
The short of the matter is this: Petitioners can interpret Section 5845 in a way that encompasses bump
stocks only if they read “function of the trigger” to exclusively mean “pulling the trigger with the backward
motion of the index finger.” Yet Petitioners themselves acknowledge that this reading is untenable,
since it would exclude from the statute’s reach any
other way of activating the trigger, as well as the use
of firearms that are discharged by alternate triggers
not operated with the index finger at all. Accordingly,
under Petitioners’ own interpretation of the statutory
phrase “single function of the trigger,” bump stocks do
not qualify as machine guns.
3. That point also suffices to dispose of Petitioners’ reliance on various snippets of legislative history
where “function of the trigger” is used interchangeably with “pull of the trigger.” The Government develops this argument at great length, citing multiple
hearings and committee reports. Pet.Br.18–20. It also
cites a 1934 Treasury Department ruling, and this
Court’s statement in Staples v. United States, 511
U.S. 600, 602 n.1 (1994), that “a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger” is a machinegun. See Pet.Br.21. But the argument fails on
multiple levels. For starters, “legislative history is not
the law,” Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 587 U.S. ---, 139
S. Ct. 1804, 1814 (2019), and all Petitioners’
19
legislative history shows here is that “pull of the trigger” was occasionally used interchangeably with, or as
a sort of shorthand for, “function of the trigger.” That
is hardly surprising, given that the most common way
of causing a trigger to function is by pulling it, and it
proves nothing.
Indeed, that is precisely how Petitioners understand their various examples of the two phrases being
used interchangeably. After reproducing those
phrases over the course of several pages, they are
forced to immediately concede that “[a]ll that said, the
term ‘single function of the trigger’ is not limited to a
single pull of the trigger,” since it must include other
ways of activating the trigger. Pet.Br.21. And as explained above, once the statutory language is understood as including ways of pulling or activating a trigger other than exclusively through the rearward motion of the index finger, then it must include pulling
the trigger by bump-firing it—and bump stocks can no
longer be counted as machine guns. Accordingly, even
if the Government’s legislative history argument were
persuasive on its substance (and it is not), it ultimately leads nowhere.
4. Returning to the actual statutory text, Petitioners next argue that the phrase “function of the trigger”
should be interpreted from the perspective of “what
the shooter does to the trigger,” rather than the
“movement of the trigger itself,” because “triggers do
not activate firearms on their own; rather, a firearm
starts firing only because the shooter does something
to the trigger.” Pet.Br.25. Yes, firearms do not go off
“on their own,” id., but the plain text of Section 5845
“is indifferent about why the trigger moves—pull,
bump, or otherwise—it looks only to how many shots
20
are fired each time the trigger moves.” Guedes, 66
F.4th at 1026 (Walker, J., dissenting). The phrase
“function of the trigger” thus “continuously points the
reader back to the mechanics of the firearm.”
Pet.App.23a–24a. “The statute speaks only to how the
trigger acts, making no mention of the shooter.”
Aposhian, 989 F.3d at 895 (Tymkovich, C.J., dissenting). Petitioners’ interpretation of the statute as “refer[ring] to the shooter’s action on the trigger,”
Pet.Br.25, is thus flatly contrary to the text.
The Government attempts to bolster its atextual
reading by pointing to “other phrases with the same
structure” that, it says, support its user-focused interpretation. Pet.Br.25–26. The phrase “ ‘[s]troke of a
key,’ ” according to Petitioners, refers to what the typist does to the key, “ ‘throw of the dice’ to what the
gambler does to the dice, and ‘swing of the bat’ to what
the hitter does to the bat. So too for ‘press of a button,’
‘touch of a screen,’ ‘flip of a switch,’ ‘toss of a coin,’ and
‘wave of a wand.’ ” Far from supporting Petitioners’
interpretation, these examples refute it. Most of these
examples are highly rhetorical expressions that possess emotive force precisely because they focus on the
object being acted upon at the exclusion of the person
acting. Saying that the outcome of some event hangs
on the “throw of the dice” has such expressive power
precisely because it focuses on the random chance or
fate guiding the motions of the dice itself, divorced
from any control by the one who throws it; writing
that someone can accomplish some feat with “the flip
of a switch” conveys the unusual power of the machinery being used, precisely because the phrase focuses
on the mechanical switch being manipulated to the exclusion of the individual using it. So too, the phrase
21
“function of the trigger” compels the reader to focus on
“the function/action of the trigger itself [as] the only
variable that matters.” Aposhian 958 F.3d at 994
(Carson, J., dissenting).
In all events, Petitioners’ insistence that the
Court focus on “what the shooter does to the trigger,”
Pet.Br.25, is ultimately a red herring. Of course, what
the user of a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic
firearm does to the trigger, in order to discharge the
firearm, is activate it through some bodily motion. The
important point is that the statutory text—as well as
Petitioners’ interpretation of it, in fact—is agnostic as
to what specific bodily motion the user employs. See
Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514, 66,535
(Dec. 26, 2018) (codified at 27 C.F.R. § 479.11) (“The
term ‘single function’ is reasonably interpreted to also
include other analogous methods of trigger activation.”). And used in conjunction with a bump stock or
not, each time the user of a semiautomatic firearm activates the trigger, it fires only a single shot. The bump
stock affects only the speed with which a user can use
his body to activate the trigger—not how many rounds
are fired with a single activation of the trigger.
5. Petitioners object that following the plain and
obvious meaning of Section 5845’s text would be contrary to the ATF’s “longstanding practice” of interpreting the definition of “machinegun” as encompassing the mechanical bump stock known as the “Akins
Accelerator.” Pet.Br.26–27. This case concerns nonmechanical bump stocks, so the Court need not address the applicability of Section 5845 to mechanical
ones. And if anything, the Government’s 2006 determination that the Akins Accelerator is a machine gun
illustrates the unpersuasiveness of its interpretation
22
of the Act. That 2006 interpretation was itself a flipflop—four years earlier, ATF had concluded that the
device was not a machinegun because it correctly “interpreted the statutory term ‘single function of the
trigger’ to refer to a single movement of the trigger.”
Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,517.
6. “In a final bid to elide the statutory text, [the
Government] appeals to congressional purpose.”
Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ---, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2372
(2023). “[A] machinegun is dangerous precisely because it eliminates the manual movements that a
shooter otherwise needs to repeat in order to fire multiple shots,” the Government insists, and so “[t]he
statute’s evident purpose” must be to regulate whatever firearms possess a requisite degree of “dangerousness.” Pet.Br.24–25. But as this Court has come to
understand, “[n]o law pursues its purposes at all
costs.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. ---, 140 S. Ct. 735,
741–42 (2020) (cleaned up). “Instead, lawmaking involves balancing interests and often demands compromise.” Id. at 742. “For these reasons and more besides
[this Court] will not presume with petitioners that
any result consistent with their account of the statute’s overarching goal must be the law but will presume more modestly instead that the legislature says
what it means and means what it says.” Henson v.
Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79, 89 (2017)
(cleaned up). And here the statutory text passed by
Congress draws the line that divides innocence from
guilt not in terms of “the weapon’s dangerousness,”
Pet.Br.25, or even its “rapid-fire capability,”
Pet.Br.40, but rather how many times the trigger
must “function” to fire “more than one shot,” 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(b).
23
Petitioners attempt to dress their naked purposive argument in more attractive garb, casting it as a
mere “anti-circumvention” rule preventing “offenders
[from] elud[ing] [the statute’s] provisions in the most
easy manner.” Pet.Br.38. Anti-circumvention principles “confirm that rifles with bump stocks are ‘machineguns’ under federal law,” the Government says,
because “rapid-fire capability poses an immense danger to the public,” and “[l]ike other machineguns, rifles equipped with bump stocks have a prodigious
rapid-fire capability upon a pull of the trigger.”
Pet.Br.40–41 (cleaned up). The end of the story thus
reveals that the argument has no clothes: it is the
same naked appeal to general congressional purposes
that was there all along. For whatever subjective purposes our legislators might have been pursuing, the
statute they ultimately settled upon does not distinguish lawful from unlawful firearms in terms of their
“rapid-fire capability.” Pet.Br.41. And adhering to the
distinction they did adopt—between firearms that can
and cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)—is not circumventing the statute, it is faithfully applying it.
Congress may yet choose to define “machinegun”
in terms of a firearm’s rate of fire rather than how
many rounds are fired by each function of its trigger.
But it is up to the elected lawmakers in that body to
adopt such an amendment—not the bureaucrats at
ATF, and not even this Court.
24
B.
Firearms Equipped with Non-Mechanical Bump Stocks Do Not Function Automatically.
The bump stocks at issue are not “machineguns”
under Congress’s definition for a second and independent reason: they do not fire more than one shot
“automatically.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). When Congress
adopted that definition, “automatically” meant “selfacting under conditions fixed for it,” or “going of itself.” Pet.App.28a (cleaned up) (quoting OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY at 574 (1933)). And a non-mechanical bump stock does not permit a semiautomatic firearm to fire more than one bullet in a “self-acting” manner. Rather, the firearm continues to fire only if the
user undertakes the separate, continuous action of
maintaining forward pressure on the front part of the
firearm. It is only that distinct action that causes the
successive rounds to fire—not the firearm or bump
stock “going of itself.” And “[a] mechanism cannot be
self-acting or self-regulating if it requires user input
to keep working.” Guedes, 66 F.4th at 1027 (Walker,
J., dissenting).
“Automatically” means an individual need do no
more once a trigger is engaged to keep a firearm firing. Consider an “advertisement,” which “declares
that a device performs a task ‘automatically by a push
of a button.’ ” Guedes v. BATFE, 920 F.3d 1, 44 (D.C.
Cir. 2019) (Henderson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Most “would understand the phrase
to mean pushing the button activates whatever function the device performs. It would come as a surprise
. . . if the device does not operate until the button is
pushed and some other action is taken—a pedal
25
pressed, a dial turned and so on.” Id. at 45 (emphasis
added).
To read “automatically” to encompass even those
mechanisms that require additional manual input
from the individual shooter would elide the distinction
between “automatic” and “semiautomatic.” “[A]n automatic gun reloads and fires automatically, so long
as the shooter keeps his finger on the trigger.” Guedes,
66 F.4th at 1027. By contrast, “[a] semiautomatic gun
is one ‘in which part, but not all, of the operations involved in loading and firing are performed automatically.’ ” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting WEBSTER’S NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 187 (2d ed. 1934)). “A gun
modified by a bump stock works semi automatically:
the shooter plays a manual role in the firing process
because he must keep constant pressure on the bump
stock.” Id.7
Indeed, a semiautomatic firearm equipped with a
non-mechanical bump stock is indistinguishable in
this respect from another type of firearm that Petitioners themselves concede does not fire multiple
shots automatically. Certain shotguns allow the user
7 In fact, to accept ATF’s definition would mean that nearly
all semiautomatic rifles are automatic because these firearms
can be bump fired without a non-mechanical bump stock. While
bump stocks make certain aspects of the process more efficient,
there are many other ways to facilitate bump firing. For example,
a video of a user bump firing a semiautomatic firearm with the
help of only his belt loop is available at YOUTUBE (Aug. 7, 2021),
https://bit.ly/496O5ax. Thus, as the court below recognized, “if
ordinary bump firing constituted automatic fire, the Final Rule
would convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machinegun
simply by how a marksman used the weapon. That absurd result
reveals the flaw in the Government’s line of reasoning.”
Pet.App.31a (quotation marks omitted).
26
to fire continuously by “pull[ing] the trigger, hold[ing]
it back, and pump[ing] the fore-end. The pump-action
ejects the spent shell and loads a new shell that fires
as soon as it is loaded.” 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,534. When
a commenter on the Government’s proposed rule
pointed out that this type of shotgun thus fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, the Government responded that it nonetheless does not qualify
as a machine gun because “it does not shoot ‘automatically,’ and certainly does not shoot ‘without manual
reloading.’ ” Id. (quoting 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)). Maintaining forward pressure on the fore-end of a bump-stockequipped firearm is a manual function no materially
different than pumping the fore-end of a pump-action
shotgun. Yet Petitioners concede the latter function is
sufficient to prevent the shotguns in question from firing more than one shot “automatically.” Id. The same
conclusion must follow for bump stocks. Petitioners
now protest that these shotguns “require[ ] a greater
degree of shooter input” than non-mechanical bump
stocks, Pet.Br.38, but the line Congress drew is one
that distinguishes between firearms that can and cannot fire multiple shots “automatically”—by “going of
itself” without any further human input whatsoever
(apart from the function of the trigger), Pet.App.86a—
not one that depends on the government’s nebulous
assessment of the “degree of shooter input” involved.
C.
Reading the Statutory Language As a
Whole Confirms Beyond Any Doubt
that Non-Mechanical Bump Stocks Are
Not “Machineguns.”
The statutory phrases limiting “machineguns” to
firearms that fire multiple shots “automatically” and
“by a single function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b),
27
each independently doom Petitioners’ attempt to
sweep non-mechanical bump stocks within that definition. But the matter is even clearer when the two
phrases are read, as they must be, together as a single
unit. A statutory provision’s “text must be construed
as a whole,” ANTONIN SCALIA & BRIAN GARNER, READING LAW 167 (2012), yet many of Petitioners’ arguments are based on a divide-and conquer approach
that seeks to engage the phrases “single function of
the trigger” and “automatically” in isolation from each
other and then defeat them seriatim. That is not how
statutory interpretation works. And when the phrase
“shoot, automatically more than one shot, without
manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger”
is understood as a whole, Petitioners’ arguments collapse.
1. The Government repeatedly asserts, for example, that bump stocks enable a user to fire more than
one round “by a single function of the trigger,” 26
U.SC. § 5845(b), because the initial activation of the
trigger “initiates a firing sequence” that discharges
multiple rounds. Pet.Br.23. But Congress did not
write a definition of “machinegun” that includes any
firearm that “initiates a firing sequence of more than
one shot by a single function of the trigger.” Instead,
Congress provided that what a “single function of the
trigger” must do, for an arm to be a machine gun, is
“shoot, automatically more than one shot.” 26 U.SC.
§ 5845(b). Petitioners’ attempt to distinguish between
using a trigger to “initiate” a firing sequence and to
“continue[ ] a sequence that has already begun,”
Pet.Br.24, is thus flatly contrary to the statutory text.
The statute does not speak in these terms; it is limited
28
to firearms that use a single function of the trigger to
fire more than a single shot.
Worse still, if Section 5845 applied to any firearm
allowing the user to initiate a firing sequence of more
than one shot with a single function of the trigger, it
would appear to encompass every semiautomatic firearm. For every time a user fires more than one round
through ordinary semiautomatic fire, he has arguably
“initiate[d] a firing sequence that produces more than
one shot,” 83 Fed. Reg. at 66,519, with a single function of the trigger—the first one. But that does not
transform a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun because it still does not shoot, automatically
more than one shot” with each trigger activation. The
same is true when the firearm is equipped with a
bump stock.
2. The Government adopts the same in abstracto
approach to interpreting “automatically.” It repeatedly argues, for example, that “the word ‘automatic’
does not connote a complete absence of human involvement.” Pet.Br.33. Instead, it insists, the word encompasses “devices which perform parts of the work
formerly or usually done by hand,” such as “an automatic teller machine,” “an automatic car wash,” or “an
automatic sewing machine.” Pet.Br.32 (emphasis
added) (cleaned up). That proposition might be relevant if Congress had defined “machinegun” as “a firearm that operates automatically,” plano. It did not.
Instead, Congress took care to specify precisely the
way in which a machinegun must operate automatically: by “shoot[ing], automatically more than one shot
. . . by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.SC.
§ 5845(b). A consumer who purchases a device advertised as an “automatic sewing machine” might
29
understand that he still must “press a pedal and direct the fabric.” Guedes, 920 F.3d at 30 (cleaned up).
But if the advertisement further stated that the machine “sews, automatically more than one stitch by a
single function of the pedal,” he would no doubt be surprised to learn that it stopped after the first stitch unless he continued to hold down a lever elsewhere on
the machine.
Reading the statutory definition as a whole also
refutes Petitioners’ marquee argument in support of
the notion that a non-mechanical bump stock allows a
semiautomatic firearm to operate “automatically”:
that it requires no greater degree of human input than
a fully automatic firearm. “In order to fire continuously” with a fully automatic arm, the Government
notes, “the shooter must not only pull the trigger, but
also keep the trigger pressed down.” Pet. Br. 33. And
“[t]here is no meaningful difference,” it says, “between
(1) maintaining rearward pressure on the trigger of a
conventional machinegun and (2) maintaining forward pressure on the front grip of a rifle with a bump
stock.” Pet.Br.34 (cleaned up).
This argument fails because maintaining pressure on the trigger of a fully automatic machinegun is
very different in the following respect: that user input
is a “function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (emphasis added). And under the statutory definition
Congress actually wrote, that difference is dispositive.
Section 5845 does not define “machinegun” as a firearm that fires multiple shots automatically, full
stop—that is, without any input from the user whatsoever. Rather, it defines “machinegun” as a firearm
that fires more than one round automatically “by a
single function of the trigger.” Id. A conventional
30
machinegun is automatic in just this sense: it “go[es]
of itself,” Pet.App.28a, so long as the user directs it to
do so by the “function of the trigger,” 26 U.S.C. §
5845(b). A semiautomatic firearm equipped with a
non-mechanical bump stock does not, because the
user can fire more than one round only if he undertakes a continuous action that is separate and distinct
from the function of the trigger: maintaining forward
pressure on the firearm with his other hand.
3. Similar reasoning disposes of Petitioners’ various and increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals designed to undermine the plain meaning of Section
5845’s text. For example, Petitioners imagine a device
that fires multiple shots continuously with a single
pull of the trigger, but only so long as the user also
keeps “pressing and holding down a selector button.”
Pet.Br.36. This imaginary device also appears to be
distinct from a non-mechanical bump stock—and
again, in just the way that the statutory text singles
out. For if pressing the button merely serves to keep
the trigger engaged, as Petitioners’ hypothetical suggests, then this action is best understood as simply a
part of the “function of the trigger” itself—in the same
manner as the automatic firearms discussed by Petitioners elsewhere, which use triggers that have to be
pushed with the thumb rather than pulled with the
index finger. Pet.Br.22. Like those firearms, Petitioners’ hypothetical device would still fire multiple
rounds “automatically” with each “function of the trigger,” and so it would qualify as a machinegun under
Section 5845(b)’s definition.
The same is true of the “AutoGlove” discussed by
Petitioners, that used “a mechanized piston on the
glove” to “repeatedly pull[ ] and releas[e]” a
31
semiautomatic firearm’s trigger. Pet.Br.29; see also
id. (discussing similar “motarized devices”). That device appears to be nothing more than an elaborate way
of replacing a firearm’s normal trigger (“the curved
metal lever”) with a new one (the mechanism used to
“activate[ ] the glove”) that only needs to function once
to fire more than one round automatically. Id.; see also
Pet.App.26a (trigger can be “something other than the
metal lever”). A firearm plainly falls within Section
5845(b)’s definition if someone modifies it by altering
the action and installing an auto sear that enables
fully automatic fire. The same is true if the alteration
uses a more elaborate device like the AutoGlove.
Likewise with the “forced reset trigger” raised by
Petitioners. Pet.Br. 28. That device literally replaces
a semiautomatic firearm’s ordinary trigger assembly
with a new one that “has no disconnector” at all; instead, when the hammer is thrust backward by the
force of discharging a round, it is “momentarily held
in place” by a “locking bar” until the next round is
chambered, and then it is immediately released to fire
a successive round, so long as the user “has simply
maintained rearward pressure on the trigger.” United
States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, 2023 WL 5689770,
at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2023) (cleaned up). The forced
reset trigger thus operates in a manner closely akin to
the trigger on an ordinary fully automatic firearm—
and despite the fact that one can see a forced reset
trigger “move slightly back and forth against the
shooter’s finger with each shot” if one views its operation “in extreme slow motion,” Pet.Br.28, it is clear
that a firearm equipped with the device can “shoot,
automatically more than one shot . . . by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
32
A bump stock is nothing like these real or imagined devices. Yes, it increases the speed with which
the user activates the trigger—and hence the overall
rate of fire. But Congress did not define “machinegun”
in those terms. It remains free to do so, but unless and
until it does, this Court must enforce the definition
Congress has enacted.
CONCLUSION
The Court should affirm.
January 29, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID H. THOMPSON
Counsel of Record
PETER A. PATTERSON
JOHN D. OHLENDORF
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire
Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.