Today the Supreme Court Issued its decision in Garland v. Cargill. An FPC case that challenges the ATFs ban and "final rule". Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion writing that the ban is unlawful. This was a 6-3 decision

Hey everybody, how's it going, and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Today is a great day—we just got the decision from the Supreme Court in Garland v. Cargill, which is the FPC case that challenged the ATF's ban on bump stocks. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the majority has overturned the ATF's bump stock ban. Let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, make sure you hit that subscribe button and that little notification bell. We have some really good things coming down the pipeline. If you know someone interested in this topic, share it out on your socials and let them know what's going on.

This was not a unanimous decision; it was split along ideological lines. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority, who seem to believe in the rule of law and the laws Congress actually passes, including the Constitution. The dissent, coming from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan, seems to be more driven by emotion and advocacy.

Now, I want to read a bit of Justice Thomas's opinion. Keep in mind, this was never really about bump stocks. It was about ATF overreach—their ability to interpret the NFA and GCA in ways that expand their regulatory authority. Essentially, the ATF took it too far and continues to do so, making this decision a referendum on their recent final rules.

On June 14th, 2024, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court: "Congress has long since restricted access to 'machine guns,' a category of firearms defined by the ability to 'shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.' Semi-automatic firearms, which require shooters to re-engage the trigger for every shot, are not machine guns. This case asks whether or not a bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly re-engage the trigger and achieve a high rate of fire, converts the rifle into a 'machine gun.' We hold that it does not and therefore affirm."

In the following paragraphs, Justice Thomas and the majority explain why they believe a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They cite examples, one being that a bump stock does not enable a single function of the trigger to discharge multiple rounds. The trigger still needs to be reset and pulled back each time, regardless of assistance from the bump stock.

Some of the language in the opinion is interesting and could be useful for challenging "assault weapon" bans, as it clarifies that these firearms are not identical to military weapons. Although I read most of the opinion (about 90%, skipping some of the dissent as it drove me nuts), I found some valuable nuggets we can use.

Justice Alito, who wrote a concurrence, seemed to suggest his hands were tied. He appeared to want to uphold the ban but was compelled to follow the law, which is how it's supposed to work. He indicated to Congress that if they want changes, they must write new law to clarify the NFA and GCA.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent was ideological, reflecting a viewpoint driven by emotional responses to specific events rather than strict adherence to the law. It seemed to advocate for banning bump stocks based on their use in high-profile incidents, using legal arguments to justify a broader agenda.

This decision is significant news. We'll continue to analyze the opinion to find elements that could aid in other cases, similar to the benefits gained from the Bruen decision, a carry case. This opinion could offer positive benefits as well.

Thank you all for watching. I really appreciate it. Another great day here—have a good one!