Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court weighs whether bump stocks qualify as "machine guns" under 1934 statute
Summary
At oral argument in Garland v. Cargill, government counsel argued that bump stocks produce multiple shots from a single initiating act and thus fall within the 1934 machine‑gun prohibition; respondent's counsel said the devices require repeated manual input and do not alter the trigger's mechanical function. The Court took extensive questioning and submitted the case.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Garland v. Cargill over whether non‑mechanical "bump stock" devices used on semiautomatic rifles fit the statutory definition of a "machine gun." Government counsel, Mister Fletcher, told the Court that rifles fitted with bump stocks "do exactly what Congress meant to prohibit when it enacted the prohibition on machine guns," and said the devices can empty a 100‑round magazine in roughly 10 seconds in practice.
Fletcher asked the justices to read the phrase "more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger" to capture devices that permit a shooter to initiate and sustain rapid fire through one continuous act. He argued that the bump stock harnesses recoil so that "a single motion both initiates and maintains a multi‑shot sequence," and he cited trial findings and slow‑motion video the government introduced showing the rifle cycling rapidly once the shooter applies steady forward pressure.
Res…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat