No. 23-62

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Scott A. Hardin

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-07-21
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law atf-rule automatic-weapon bump-stock due-process firearms-regulation machinegun-definition mass-shootings second-amendment statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Takings JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-06-20 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a bump stock device is a 'machinegun' as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED Since 1986, Congress has prohibited the transfer or possession of any new “machinegun.” 18 U.S.C. 922(0)(1). The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq., defines a “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The statutory definition also encompasses “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.” Ibid. A “bump stock” is a device designed and intended to permit users to convert a semiautomatic rifle so that the rifle can be fired continuously with a single pull of the trigger, discharging potentially hundreds of bullets per minute. In 2018, after a mass shooting in Las Vegas carried out using bump stocks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published an interpretive rule concluding that bump stocks are machineguns as defined in Section 5845(b). In the decision below, the Sixth Circuit held that the ATF rule was unlawful because the statutory definition of “machinegun” does not encompass bump stocks. The question presented is as follows: Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot * * * by a single function of the trigger.” (I)

Docket Entries

2024-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2023-10-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2023.
2023-10-05
Reply of petitioners Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2023-10-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-09-20
2023-08-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 20, 2023.
2023-08-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 21, 2023 to September 20, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-07-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 21, 2023)

Attorneys

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Petitioner
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Petitioner
Scott A. Hardin
Jason Todd HardinHardin Law PLLC, Respondent
Jason Todd HardinHardin Law PLLC, Respondent