The Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill was based solely on the statutory text of the National Firearms Act. The ruling clarified that a bump stock does not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun because it still requires a separate trigger pull for each shot. The Court’s detailed explanation of how firearms function had broader implications, confirming that semiautomatic rifles are not machineguns and are protected by the Second Amendment as they are commonly used. The decision also emphasized that any changes to criminal laws should be made by Congress, not administrative agencies like the ATF. Justice Samuel Alito suggested that Congress could amend the law if they wanted to address the issue. In the past, proposed bills to ban bump stocks have been criticized for their vague language and potential to criminalize law-abiding gun owners. Ultimately, the Court’s ruling reaffirmed the importance of interpreting laws based on their explicit text and not on perceived intentions. There is a significant issue at hand regarding the ban on machineguns. The National Firearms Act of 1934 did not actually ban machineguns, but rather imposed a tax. In Sonzinski v. U.S. (1937), the Supreme Court determined that the NFA was primarily a taxing measure with minimal regulation. However, in 1986, Congress passed 18 USC § 922(o), which prohibited the possession of machineguns not owned prior to the enactment date. This new law lacked a connection to interstate commerce, leading some judges, including now-Justice Alito, to question its constitutionality.
Alito raised concerns in U.S. v. Rybar (3rd Cir. 1996), comparing the 922(o) provision to the statute in the Lopez case, which was struck down for overstepping Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. He argued that both laws regulated intrastate firearm possession without requiring proof of interstate commerce impact. Alito believed that without this link, the statute should be invalidated.
Despite resistance from lower courts, the issue of Congress’s authority to ban firearm possession remains. The low incidence of machinegun-related crimes prior to the 1986 ban raises questions about the necessity of such legislation. While the ban on new machineguns is unlikely to be overturned, future bills may target accessories like bump stocks. Senator Feinstein’s S. 1916 proposed restrictions beyond bump stocks, potentially impacting trigger modifications and popular rifles like the AR-15.
Looking ahead, the judiciary’s role in evaluating gun control measures is crucial. The Court’s commitment to interpreting the law independently from administrative influence is essential. As Chief Justice Marshall once stated, “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
Source link
