October Term 2023 · Docket 22-976

Does a bump stock device make a rifle a machinegun?

The dispute centers on whether a bump stock device turns a semi-automatic rifle into a machinegun under federal law.

Official caption
Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Cargill
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Brian Fletcher argued that firing a bump stock rifle requires pressing the front of the rifle forward.

    Fletcher claimed the device does not change the trigger's single function.

    Brian Mitchell argued that the statutory definition focuses on the trigger's automatic function.

    Mitchell stated that Cargill's device falls outside the machinegun definition for two independent reasons.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The government argues that bump stocks make rifles function like machineguns. Cargill argues the device does not change the trigger mechanism. The Court must define the statutory term machinegun.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to classify bump stocks as machineguns.

Cargill wants the Court to rule that bump stocks are not machineguns.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government claims bump stocks allow a rifle to fire multiple shots with one trigger pull.

Cargill claims the statutory definition requires the trigger itself to fire multiple shots automatically.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked what happens to the trigger when a shooter does not need a bump stock.

Justice Thomas asked what a shooter must do besides depress the trigger on a machinegun.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines whether owners can legally possess bump stocks. It defines the legal boundary between semi-automatic and automatic firearms. It impacts federal gun control enforcement nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON