Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for the Supreme Court in the “bump stock firearms” case may have a greater impact for what it does not explicitly state rather than what it does. The case, Garland v. Cargill, on the surface, delivered a legal triumph for gun owners. However, beneath the surface, it marked a constitutional win for grassroots Americans and a blow to the formidable federal bureaucracy.
The focal point of the case was the ban on machine guns outlined in the National Firearms Act of 1934, which defines a machine gun as a firearm capable of automatically firing more than one shot with a single trigger pull. At the heart of the matter was whether a bump stock accessory could transform a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was involved in the case, having initially maintained that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock did not qualify as a machine gun. However, following a tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, the ATF revised its stance, categorizing bump stock firearms as machine guns and ordering individuals like Michael Cargill to surrender such weapons.
Simultaneously, Congress declined to pass legislation reclassifying bump stock firearms as illegal machine guns. Justice Thomas, writing for a six-person majority, concluded that a bump stock rifle does not meet the criteria of a machine gun as defined by the law. He argued that the rapid firing facilitated by a bump stock does not constitute a single trigger function but rather accelerates distinct actions. Additionally, he emphasized that the repeated firing with a bump stock is not automatic, as the user must exert additional pressure beyond trigger manipulation.
In essence, the ruling in Cargill challenged an agency’s reinterpretation of a congressional law that the agency itself administered. This aspect underscores the broader constitutional significance of the case.
The article delves into the historical context of legal precedents that have bolstered the federal administrative state and limited challenges to federal laws. It highlights the pivotal Chevron case of 1984, which granted federal agencies significant authority in interpreting their own powers. The author contends that the current Supreme Court, possibly with the exception of Justice Thomas, has been reluctant to reassess these legal frameworks. However, recent cases like Cargill suggest a shift away from Chevron-style deference to agency interpretations.
In conclusion, the article suggests that the Supreme Court may be moving towards overturning the Chevron precedent, as evidenced by its thorough examination of the Federal Firearms Act in the Cargill case. This shift signifies a potential reevaluation of the balance of power between Congress, the administrative state, and the judiciary. Please write again.
Source link
