A gun store owner sued the ATF over its bump stock ban, which reached the Supreme Court.
The owner, Michael Cargill, argued federal agencies are weaponizing regulations to target firearms and accessories beyond bump stocks.
His 2019 lawsuit claimed the ATF improperly reclassified bump stocks as machine guns using vague language that has since been applied more broadly.
Cargill said, “The federal government, they initially started out with just the bump stock. They focused on this little part, this little piece here. But since then, it’s grown to other things. Federal agencies are using the exact same verbiage, the exact rule they used to ban the bump stock to go after everything else.”
He continued, “They’re going after AR-15 stabilizer braces. They’re going after triggers, after 80 percent frames and receivers, all with the same words and language as they used against bump stocks.”
Nation Public Radio’s Martin Kaste revealed the ATF bump stock ban “reclassifies [bump stocks] as ‘machine guns,’ no matter when they were purchased, and owning one will become a felony.”
A lower court sided with Cargill but the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Cargill warned that upholding the ban could endorse expansive agency power over Second Amendment rights.
His case challenges the ATF’s authority to redefine devices without congressional approval.
A ruling in his favor could curb future agency actions against guns and accessories.
The high court will hear arguments in Cargill v. Garland concerning executive overreach and Second Amendment protections.
Cargill declared, “Once you give them an inch, they will take a mile…If we win, we use this case law down the road for the Second Amendment community.”
