Congress has long restricted access to “‘machinegun[s],’” a category of firearms defined by the ability to “shoot, automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b); see also 18 U. S. C. §922(o). Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semiautomatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a “machinegun.” We hold that it does not and therefore affirm.
Opinion, Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976 (U.S. May 14, 2024) Justice Thomas

More later.

Spread the love

By awa

3 thoughts on “Garland v. Cargill”
  1. People are already pointing out all the bumblef&cks is Sotomayor’s dissent. One involved her stating that AR’s were ‘commonly available’. Going to have fun trying to argue that one anymore.

Comments are closed.